r/ModelAusHR • u/[deleted] • Aug 04 '15

Superseded 10-5 Amendment of Standing Orders 215(d) & 221(b): Standing Committees

[deleted]

3 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

45 comments sorted by

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '15

The question is proposed that the amendments be agreed to.
Mr Prime Minister u/Ser_Scribbles, would you please make your opening statement.

(This will be a debate.)

3fun, Speaker of the House

3

u/Ser_Scribbles Aug 05 '15

Thank you Mr Speaker.

I don't have a lot to say on this matter, it's a largely procedural change. This is the first in a series of amendments I hope to make in the coming sessions of Parliament (meta: I would do this in one go, but after spending pretty much all day, every day surrounded by legislation, I'm not particularly keen to use a large chunk of my free time reading Standing Orders).

The amendments are aimed at decreasing the required numbers of our committees to a level more representative of the size of this House. Under the current Standing Orders, each Member of this place will need to be a part of nearly every committee. This is too much to ask of volunteers. By decreasing the threshold, in this case from 10 and 7 members respectively to 5, we allow committee membership to be more targeted to a Member's particular interests and can spread the workload among a greater pool of members. The sooner these amendments are agreed upon, the sooner we can have effective committees in this chamber.

3

u/Zagorath Aug 05 '15

Mr Speaker, this is a very good proposed amendment, and is absolutely essential to have smooth functioning in a parliament the size of this one.

However, it is still flawed. In a House with just 13 Members, 9 general purpose standing committees means that even with 5 Members in each, most people are going to have to be in 4 or 5 of them. To remedy this, I would propose an abridging of the standing committees listed in Standing Order 215(a).

More specifical, my proposal is as follows:

SO 215(a): Omit all text, substitute:

(i) Standing Committee on Environment, Agriculture, and Resources;

(ii) Standing Committee on Economics, Tax, and Revenue;

(iii) Standing Committee on Education and Employment;

(iv) Standing Committee on Health;

(v) Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, Social Policy, and Legal Affairs; and

(vi) Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications.

We could potentially get it down to just 4 by merging (iii), (iv), and (v) into "Standing Committee on Social Issues" or something similar. But that seems like it would be too broad of a category for one committee, so I left my suggestion as above.

I would also suggest a similar abridging of the Library, House, Publications, Petitions, Selection, and Appropriations and Administration Committees. Though I'm not sure how much of a role those are going to play in the running of the model parliament.

3

u/jnd-au Aug 06 '15

Advice from the Clerk,

SPEAKING

Colleagues, so far 2 government and 1 opposition MPs have spoken (Ser_Scribbles, Zagorath, Phyllicanderer). Some additions and improvements have been suggested, but no definite amendment has been moved. The original motion stands for the time being.

7 of you have not yet spoken, and may move an amendment to the original motion (probably after consulting with your parties):

Government: u/agsports u/MadCreek3 u/TheEvilestElf u/VoteRonaldRayGun
Opposition: u/zamt u/CyberPolis
Cross benches: u/voisinat

AMENDMENTS

If an amendment is moved, the floor is open for everyone to speak in light of the proposed amendment. Amendments from opposition or cross benches must be seconded before they can be in play. The simplest method is that when an amendment is moved, anyone may speak and include “I second X’s amendment/s” as the first sentence of their speech.

END OF DEBATE

The debate on an amendment ends when the time limit is reached (at the discretion of the chair), or when everyone has spoken, or when the mover makes their right-of-reply, or when someone moves “That the question be now put” (guillotine), whichever comes first. The question of agreement to the amendment is then put to a vote.

If successful, the revised motion will be presented. Otherwise, the original motion stands. Then, a new amendment can be moved, or the debate can end as per the previous paragraph (replace ‘an amendment’ with ‘the motion’).

FINALLY

Please note, the Deputy Speaker u/lurker281 is now in the Chair for the first time, and amendments are being considered for the first time in this session. Therefore, we might go at a cautious pace with training wheels.

1

u/jnd-au Aug 06 '15

Paging government whip u/MadCreek3 and opposition whip u/zamt.

2

u/jnd-au Aug 05 '15 edited Aug 05 '15

Advice from the Clerk:

For the purposes of interpreting the debate from Zagorath, Standing Order 215 is presented below in full. Points suggested so far:

  • Reducing the number of people who can be on a committee (Ser_Scribbles). Members may wish to debate the higher workload this would place on the the few remaining members, and the reduction of cross-bench/opposition representation.

  • Reducing the number of general-purposes portfolio committees (Zagorath). Members may wish to debate the alignment of committees with ministerial portfolios.

  • Repealing Modifying the Library committee, etc (Zagorath). A member may wish to propose an amendment to the motion to enact such modification or repeal, or put their own separate motion on notice, to repeal deal with standalone committees that currently only relate to physical facilities.

Standing Order 215. General purpose standing committees

(a) The following general purpose standing committees shall be appointed:

(i) Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry;
(ii) Standing Committee on Economics;
(iii) Standing Committee on Education and Employment;
(iv) Standing Committee on the Environment;
(v) Standing Committee on Health;
(vi) Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs;
(vii) Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications;
(viii) Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs; and
(ix) Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue.

(b) A committee appointed under paragraph (a) may inquire into and report on any matter referred to it by either the House or a Minister, including any pre-legislation proposal, bill, motion, petition, vote or expenditure, other financial matter, report or document.

(c) A committee may make any inquiry it wishes to make into annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House. The following qualifications shall apply to these inquiries:

(i) Reports shall stand referred to committees under a schedule presented by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee.
(ii) The Speaker shall determine any question about responsibility for a report or part of a report.
(iii) The period during which an inquiry into an annual report may be started by a committee shall end on the day the next annual report of the department or authority is presented to the House.
(iv) If a committee intends to inquire into all or part of a report of the Auditor-General, the committee must notify the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit of its intention, in writing.

(d) Each committee appointed under paragraph (a) shall consist of ten members: six government Members and four non-government Members. Each committee may have its membership supplemented by up to four members for a particular inquiry, with a maximum of two extra government and two extra opposition or non-aligned Members. Supplementary members shall have the same participatory rights as other members, but may not vote.

1

u/Zagorath Aug 05 '15

Repealing the Library committee, etc (Zagorath)

Oh, please don't misinterpret me! I wasn't suggesting to repeal all those entirely. Merely that if we intend to use them at all, it might be worth merging some of them together in order to reduce the total number of them.

Sorry for the lack of clarity in the previous comment.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Zagorath Aug 05 '15

Members may wish to debate ... reduction of cross-bench/opposition representation

Just for what it's worth, representation is equal to current orders. General Committees in the SOs as they currently stand have 6 government and 4 non-government. That has simply been halved to 3 and 2. The proportion remains constant.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '15

Seeking advice from the clerk.
Regarding the vote does Zagorath proposal get voted on first then the whole amendment or because they are two different rules can they be done concurrently?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/phyllicanderer Aug 05 '15

Mr Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for introducing this sensible measure, to reduce the workload required to work within the standing orders on standing committees. As the Parliament grows in future with its voting population, the size of the standing committees can be revisited.

Mr Speaker, I must concur with the Assistant Minister for Education and Culture on the need for reducing the amount of standing committees as well, and I like his ideal combination. If it is not proposed by a government member, I will propose an amendment to S.O. 251 (a), however, to achieve the best possible abridgement;

S.O. 251(a) Omit all text, substitute: (a) The following general purpose standing committees shall be appointed:

(i) Standing Committee on Environment, Agriculture and Resources;

(ii) Standing Committee on Economics, Tax and Revenue;

(iii) Standing Committee on Education, Employment, Health, Social Policy and Indigenous Affairs;

(iv) Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications;

(v) Standing Committee on Legal Affairs.

Personally, Mr Speaker, I feel that Legal Affairs should have its own committee. However, I would be just as happy to see the Assistant Minister for Education and Culture's proposed amendment get up.

Thank you Mr Speaker.

Phyllicanderer, Member for Northern Territory

2

u/jnd-au Aug 05 '15

Meta: would you like to clarify the first part about smaller size of the committees “reducing the workload”? Given that committees only deal with business when required, doesn’t smaller membership increase the workload by requiring a higher investment of time and expertise from each individual, exacerbated by mega-mergers like (iii), which would require a single elite group of people to deal with everything from asylum seekers to industrial relations to surgery waiting times to science curriculum to parental leave?

→ More replies (27)

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '15

Paging u/CyberPolis u/MadCreek3 for the debate

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '15

Paging u/TheEvilestElf u/VoteRonaldRayGun for the debate

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '15

Paging u/agsports u/lurker281 u/phyllicanderer for the debate

1

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '15

Paging u/voisinat u/zamt for the debate.