PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Contact us | Advanced search |   search
  1. Home
  2. Hansard
  3. Legislative Council by date
  4. 20 June 2001

Chairman Of Committees

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 6 of 54 | Next Item »


About this Item
SpeakersGallacher The Hon Michael; Egan The Hon Michael; Gay The Hon Duncan; Johnson The Hon John; Sham-Ho The Hon Helen; Chesterfield-Evans The Hon Dr Arthur; Jones The Hon Richard; Nile Reverend The Hon Fred; Jones The Hon Malcolm; Wong The Hon Dr Peter; Breen The Hon Peter
BusinessCommittee, Members


    CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Page: 14790
    Motion for Removal from Office

    The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.07 a.m.]: I move:
        That the Honourable Tony Kelly, Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, be removed from that office.
    Yesterday members of this House and the people of New South Wales witnessed a very sad event in the history of the New South Wales Parliament. I do not intend to rake over the coals of what was happening outside this Chamber. I want to deal with the conduct of honourable members of this House and the manner in which the integrity of the position of Deputy-President—the person who acts as President in your absence, Madam President—was brought into question.

    I have been told on numerous occasions since I was elected to Parliament that the Legislative Council is not the lower House; that we do not do things in the same way as they are done in the other place. I have always interpreted that to mean that the integrity and independence of the Legislative Council is paramount, that, indeed, the sovereignty of the Legislative Council is paramount in the minds of members of the Legislative Council. What we witnessed yesterday was nothing short of a conspiracy between Government members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly to ensure that this House did not continue to sit, irrespective of the fact that it was a scheduled sitting day and that a quorum of honourable members was present. Responsibility for that very deliberate act can be placed at the feet of the Deputy-President, the Hon. Tony Kelly, who was acting in your place at the time. As I said, I have been told that the Legislative Council is not the lower House; that we have traditions in this Chamber and that the Legislative Council upholds its right to sit and to debate legislation.

    Yesterday, all members knew that within the Government Business Orders of the Day there was a substantial list of legislation for debate, and what happened was an absolute disgrace. It was played out less than 15 minutes earlier in the Legislative Assembly when the Government members refused to attend the Chamber upon the ringing of the bell. As I said, less than 15 minutes after that, the same gutless act was played out in the Legislative Council. The partisan approach of the Deputy-President, Tony Kelly, is unacceptable to members on this side of the Chamber. All reasonably minded members of the Legislative Council have always held the view that the occupants of the positions of President, Deputy President or, indeed, Chairman of Committees must maintain complete integrity and that all members must be assured that partisan politics will not be played by those holding those positions. When we elect members to fulfil those roles, each of us does so hoping in our hearts and minds that the independent role of the judge_if you like, the arbitrator in this Council_will be upheld. What we saw yesterday was in complete contravention of that belief.

    It is important to reflect briefly on the events leading up to the decision taken by the Government. In some ways I feel sorry for Tony Kelly because I believe he was put into a difficult position by his Government team and was forced to do what he did yesterday. Unfortunately, the responsibility that he bears as Deputy-President means that he is accountable for his actions yesterday. Madam President, yesterday you were in the Parliament when the House was summoned at 2.30 in the afternoon. For whatever reason—and it is a matter for your own mind and your own conscience—you declined to take the chair.

    As the bells were ringing, a number of members were present in the Chamber. With a minute to go before the House commenced, the Leader of the Government, wearing a suit, dressed appropriately to conduct himself as the Leader of the Government in this Chamber, entered the Chamber and spoke to one of the Clerks briefly before leaving. Also, the Hon. Eddie Obeid was only a short distance from the Chamber as the bells were ringing but, surprise, surprise, as the Deputy-President took the chair, neither of these two Ministers had the guts to enter the Chamber as they were required to do.

    It was interesting that a number of Government members refused to enter the Chamber yesterday afternoon at that important part in the day's proceedings. That gave the Opposition an indication of what was about to take place. We watched carefully the way in which the plan was orchestrated to draw to the Deputy-President's attention the lack of a Minister in the Chamber. Of course, a point of order was taken by the Hon. "Johnno" Johnson. It was extremely disappointing that at that moment the Deputy-President decided to suspend the sitting until the ringing of a long bell.

    It is extremely important for all honourable members in considering the significant debate that will take place on the motion to remove Tony Kelly from his position as Chairman of Committees to understand that the Opposition asserts that it had the right to speak to the point of order to suspend the sitting, because the ringing of a long bell is not spelt out in the standing orders of this House; it is a longstanding convention only, but that is again extremely important in considering the sovereignty and integrity of the operations of the Legislative Council.

    A number of members of the Opposition endeavoured to take points of order with the Deputy-President. It will be interesting for those members who were not in the Chamber and for those who were to replay what happened. The Deputy-President for a fleeting moment appeared to be unsure of what he intended to do. He then looked at members on the Opposition side and could be seen to be considering his options. He quickly regathered himself and—ignoring and refusing to acknowledge the points of order sought rightfully to be taken by the Opposition about the ringing of the long bell and the suspension of the sitting—turned and walked away from the chair and out of the Chamber.

    It was his refusal not only to accept or listen to the points of order but to acknowledge that members in this House have the right to ask questions and to speak to points of order with respect to a convention, not a standing order, that has caused the Opposition to take the drastic action of seeking his removal from the office of Deputy-President because it is quite clear that we cannot be guaranteed that he will not again take a partisan approach at any future time.

    Members of this Chamber need to be assured that in the future, irrespective of what happened yesterday, whoever is presiding over this Chamber will do so with the utmost integrity, and that any decision will be taken impartially. I can assure honourable members that members on the Opposition side of the Chamber no longer hold that view with respect to the Hon. Tony Kelly's position of Chairman of Committees, and for that reason we are seeking his removal from that position today. In refusing to hear points of order, he really showed his partisan colours and we do not believe he can continue in his position as Chairman of Committees.

    It is important, as I mentioned earlier, that we recognise that at the time there was a quorum in the House. Members of the Government, members of the crossbench and members of the Opposition were in the Chamber ready to proceed with the legislative program for the day. What they saw was an abuse of the forms of this House. Members of this House can no longer be assured of the impartiality of the Hon. Tony Kelly, because of the partisan way in which he conducted himself yesterday when acting as Deputy-President and they cannot, indeed, be assured of his impartiality when he sits as Chairman of Committees.

    There was no opportunity yesterday for members to debate the ringing of the long bell. The Hon. Tony Kelly simply denied any opportunity for members of the Opposition to speak to points of order with respect to that decision. As I have said, it is for that reason that we have moved that he be removed from his position as Chairman of Committees.

    The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.18 a.m.]: Yesterday the Hon. Tony Kelly behaved in an entirely appropriate and proper way. It is a longstanding practice of the Legislative Council to require that a Minister be present in the House when it is sitting. I quote the advisory note that has been circulated by the Clerk, which states:
        The practice of requiring a Minister to be present in the Legislative Council is of long standing. In 1931 the President [that is President Farrer] left the Chair immediately after the House met and before proceeding to the conduct of any other business, on account of the absence of the Representative of the Government. When the Minister arrived, he made his apologies to the House before business resumed.
        More recently in 1981, 1982, and 1983, the President [in this case President Johnson] again left the Chair owing to the absence of a Minister, in the first instance immediately after reading the Prayer, and in the second two instances during debate on a bill. On each occasion the House did not resume until a Minister had arrived. When a point of order was taken in December 1995 that a Minister was not present the Minister immediately returned and business continued.

    Quite clearly it is a requirement of this House that a Minister be in the House when it is sitting; otherwise the occupant of the Chair is required to leave it. Of course, the persons responsible for that happening yesterday were me, my ministerial colleagues and my Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Ian Macdonald. I shall inform the House why we did not enter the Chamber yesterday; it was simply because other members of this Parliament were prevented from attending this Parliament. That is a very good reason.

    The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: They were not prevented, it was their choice not to come through the picket. They were not prevented.

    The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: They were prevented.

    The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Rubbish.

    The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: They were prevented.

    The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: You were here.

    The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Yes, I was here and I am explaining why I did not enter the Chamber. I did not enter the Chamber because members of the Parliament were outside because they could not gain entry to the Parliament. It was as simple as that.

    The Hon. Rick Colless: You had entered.

    The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: And the Hon. Rick Colless had entry to the Parliament.

    The Hon. Rick Colless: You weren't in the House.

    The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Can the Hon. Rick Colless not hear? Of course I was here, and I am explaining why I did not come into the Chamber. I will never come into the Chamber, and none of my ministerial colleagues will ever come into the Chamber, if even one member of this Parliament is prevented from attending the Chamber. If a mad mob blockading the Parliament prevents even one member from attending the Parliament I will not attend the Chamber, because it would be a complete and utter farce for the Chamber to continue its business when an elected member of Parliament is prevented from attending.

    I state that as a matter of principle, which the Government upheld yesterday and which the Government will always uphold. The notion that a Parliament can continue with its business when some or all of its members are precluded from attending the Chamber is, of course, an absolute travesty. I am absolutely disgusted that some members of the House, who bargained their way in, who traded their way in, actually took advantage of the blockade to attend the Parliament.

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.22 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not do that eagerly, because as a former Deputy-President I have also presided over the Chamber. I do not support the motion because I believe that the Hon. Tony Kelly is a bad Deputy-President or a bad person; on the whole I believe he is a good person.

    The Hon. Henry Tsang: He is a good Labor man.

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There is no such thing; that is an oxymoron. On the whole, the rulings he makes in this House are impartial; they are probably some of the better rulings that are made in this House. But what happened yesterday was a different matter, and unfortunately the Opposition cannot let it pass without comment. Yesterday, an inherently good man acted in a partial and partisan manner. What happened in this House yesterday was not by accident; it was quite obviously calculated and orchestrated from outside.

    The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: There was a conspiracy.

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti and I do not always agree, but his interjection is quite appropriate. What happened yesterday had all the appearances of a conspiracy. When the House adjourned yesterday I went to the Clerk's office to check on rulings. Some five minutes later, or less, I left that office and came into the House and the President was present. That was before 3 o'clock, the time at which the Left were allowed into the Parliament, and that indicated to me that the President had been in the Parliament for some time.

    That leads me to ask: Was the President asked to do what the Hon. Tony Kelly was asked, or forced, to do yesterday, but refused? The President was certainly in the Parliament and we know that Ministers were in the Parliament. I do not believe for one moment that what happened yesterday was the idea of the Hon. Tony Kelly. I suspect he was forced to do what he did. But, as Chairman of Committees he took an oath to be impartial. A Presiding Officer has to be totally impartial.

    I believe that one should be allowed to exercise one's vote and when I was Deputy-President, the Clerks continually suggested to me that I should vote according to precedent, but I always believed that as a Deputy-President I had only one vote and that I should be able to exercise it in any way I chose. I went beyond the recommendation of the Clerks.

    The Hon. John Johnson: You never voted for us once.

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, I did not, and I always announced that I was exercising my vote according to my beliefs. It was obvious that this matter was orchestrated, because it was no accident that the Hon. Tony Kelly took the chair, and it was no accident that only the Hon. John Johnson came into the House. The Hon. Tony Kelly sat steely-faced, trying not to look at members on the Opposition side of the House. I can understand the position his party had forced him into, but we cannot accept that an occupant of the chair, who is sworn in by the Governor, should be party to any degree of collusion and partiality.

    Despite the fact that we think his past rulings were correct, and probably that his future rulings will also be correct, yesterday, when it counted, he failed to uphold the best traditions of this Parliament. I was also disappointed that the Hon. John Johnson was party to that failure and that caucus had forced him, after such a magnificent record in this House, to be part of what happened yesterday. The Opposition does not put it any higher than that. We have very few options and it is with great reluctance that we have moved for the removal of the Hon. Tony Kelly as Chairman of Committees. As I said earlier, he is not a bad Deputy-President and he is not a bad person, but yesterday's activity by the Government cannot be allowed to pass.

    The Hon. JOHN JOHNSON [11.28 a.m.]: As we get older we lose the corporate memory, but it has not happened to me! If one looks at the briefing note that is available to all members one sees that when I occupied the illustrious position of President of this House I took the same action as the Hon. Tony Kelly took yesterday. In 1981, 1982 and 1983 I took action against Labor Ministers. I believed that the House was entitled to the dignity of having a Minister present.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are defending yourself.

    The Hon. JOHN JOHNSON: No, I am not defending myself, but I am going to tell you that I took those actions—

    The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: How did you get in?

    The Hon. JOHN JOHNSON: I walked in.

    The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: You said you were prevented.

    The Hon. JOHN JOHNSON: I did not say that.

    The Hon. Michael Gallacher: All the rest did. They said that Government members were prevented from coming into the Parliament.

    The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: You have just exposed the lie of Michael Egan.

    The Hon. JOHN JOHNSON: At the time I took those actions I was prompted to take them by members of the Opposition.

    The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: That is right.

    The Hon. JOHN JOHNSON: I do not need the assistance of the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti, but I thank him for it. On each of those occasions we saw the tardiness of some of the Ministers at the time. They would wander into the House when they wanted to. I took the action on each of those occasions. There was no Minister available yesterday in the House. The Deputy-President took the appropriate action that has been previously taken by Labor and Liberal Presidents of this Chamber. I have served in this Chamber under very illustrious Deputy-Presidents, including Thomas Sidney McKay, a member of the Liberal Party, who is still alive and is a wonderful man, and Clive Healey, of whom I have a very happy memory.

    The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: You would not have caught Sir Adrian Solomons doing it. He would not have done what you did yesterday.

    The Hon. JOHN JOHNSON: Sir Adrian Solomons, I am told, would not have done it. He received his position in this House when none of you would support him and none of your compatriots supported him. We supported him because we knew he was the best man for the job. He was followed by another illustrious Deputy-President who sits opposite me, a man of immense integrity, the Hon. Duncan Gay. He was followed by another man who is an illustrious Deputy-President, the Hon. Tony Kelly, who will prove to be an immeasurably good Deputy-President. He has proved it so far. He did nothing wrong yesterday. He defended the right of every member to get into this Parliament unimpeded.

    The Hon. John Jobling: And they did.

    The Hon. JOHN JOHNSON: And they did not.

    The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You got in.

    The Hon. JOHN JOHNSON: I got in but that does not mean that every member got in. The Deputy-President acted in the best traditions of this Parliament.

    The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [11.34 a.m.]: Before I make my contribution to this motion to remove the Hon. Tony Kelly from his office as Chairman of Committees, I mention that we do not have a Hansard record of what happened at the beginning of proceedings yesterday—that is, what was said by the Hon. Tony Kelly and the Hon. John Johnson. I have tried to take party politics out of this debate and to be impartial. The matter is technical because in this House we adhere to conventions. As the Hon. Doug Moppett knows, many things are not written and the Parliament follows unwritten rules and practices. In this case convention has been followed. In my view, the wrong motion has been moved. We should not be debating a motion to remove the Hon. Tony Kelly; we should be debating a motion to censure the Ministers because a Minister was not present in the House. Therefore, the fault does not lie with the Hon. Tony Kelly or the President, but with the fact that there was no rostered Minister in the House.

    As the Hon. John Johnson indicated, when there is no Minister in the House there are no proceedings in the House—and that is the correct practice. That has been the convention and many examples of it are cited in other Australian parliaments as well as in the New South Wales Legislative Council. Again, taking party politics out of this debate, the Hon. John Johnson said that in 1981, 1982 and 1983 he had to vacate the Chair and not deal with business. I was present in December 1995 when, although it is not recorded, there was no Minister in the House. However, it was recorded in the Legislative Council journal of December 1995 that President Willis was not present. The most recent occasion was in October 1998 when notice was taken of the absence of a Minister and President Chadwick left the chair until a Minister was present in the House. Therefore, Presidents from both sides of politics have properly adhered to conventions that when there is no Minister in the House they did not deal with the business of the House, and that is the correct procedure.

    Technically, the Hon. Tony Kelly had to follow the correct convention. As far as I can see, technically he did the right thing because there was no Minister in the House. The Leader of the House said that the Minister did not turn up because he thought it was anti-parliamentary. Lengthy debate took place yesterday about members being prevented from entering Parliament, but that is another issue. I will not debate it—we debated the matter for two hours yesterday and I do not wish to waste the time of the House by debating it again. Yesterday I supported the motion to support unions in their action. They had to resort to that because of the Government's actions and in that sense it was the Government's fault. We should not remove the Hon. Tony Kelly. Instead, a motion should have been moved to censure those Ministers who were not present.

    The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.38 a.m.]: A few facts need to be placed on the record. Mention should be made of the two-faced nature of this Government. First, it must be recorded that Hansard was not present in the Chamber due to the picketing of Parliament House by unionists, who were upset about the workers compensation legislation. Second, it should be recorded that there was a picket line outside Parliament House and the unionists running the picket line allowed members of Parliament through if they wished to pass.

    If members chose not to cross the line in solidarity with the unionists, that was a matter for their own consciences. The unionists did not physically prevent members from entering the Parliament building. The Treasurer's suggestion that members were prevented from entering the building by some sort of anarchy is untrue. It is true that staff—including Hansard staff—did not enter the Parliament because of what amounted to a strike by those in the union movement who are concerned about the workers compensation legislation.

    It is likely that the Government did not have the numbers in this Chamber yesterday because some members, because of their consciences and personal distress about the appalling workers compensation legislation, chose to stay outside Parliament and thus would not have been able to vote dutifully with the Government in any division that was called. So the Government, short of numbers, deliberately interfered with the working of Parliament for its own convenience. It is a bit rich for the Government now to claim that it was defending the honour of Parliament by getting the police to help its members cross the picket line and by suspending the sitting when none of those members were present in the Chamber. In fact, Government members chose not to cross the picket line and the Government interfered with the operation of Parliament by not sending a Minister to the House. A large number of members were in the foyer of the building and chose not to enter the Chamber.

    The Government of course wanted to hold a caucus meeting so that it could bully its members—by threatening to remove their preselection—into voting the way it wanted on the workers compensation legislation. I will not go into the details of that appalling legislation because it will be debated later today, or at least later this week, and enough will be said about it then. The Government deliberately sabotaged the operation of the House and then pretended, through the comments of the Hon. John Johnson, to be upholding the honour of Parliament—when of course it was not. It is true that the conventions established by former Presidents the Hon. John Johnson and the Hon. Virginia Chadwick precluded the House from sitting if no Minister was present in the Chamber. However, they are precedents rather than rules.

    If the Government deliberately manipulated those precedents, one must wonder whether that is what precedents are for—particularly when a long bell is rung, which effectively means that the Government can do what it likes with the sitting of the House. The Government has complete contempt for the House. It said, "If we choose not to run the House, we will prevent it from operating and then ring the long bell so that Parliament sits whenever it suits us."

    I am reminded of the story that was told to me many years ago about De Bakey, the famous American cardiac surgeon. He used to do ward rounds each day and all staff members who were not present for his rounds were sacked. One day he flew halfway across America to attend a meeting, returned 24 hours later and sacked those staff who had not been present for the start of the meeting. That interesting anecdote was told with great approval by cardiac surgeons who thought they should be gods but sought to prove they acted moderately while admiring the extreme actions of another. The Government was happy to keep honourable members waiting until the ringing of the long bell, yet Government members failed to turn up for the beginning of the sitting. The Government now claims that it was upholding the dignity of Parliament through the actions of the Deputy-President. That is nonsense.

    This two-faced Government pretends that it was defending democracy through the actions of the police when its lack of consultation during the democratic process is what upset the unions in the first place. It has accused the unions of blocking access to Parliament House when it was Government members' consciences that prevented them from entering the building. It was their political convictions and opposition to the Government's legislation that prevented their presence in this Chamber, not bullyboy tactics on the part of the unions, as the Government alleges. The Government is now pretending that the Deputy-President was defending the honour of the House when it deliberately undermined the dignity of the House through its behaviour. I confess that I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. Tony Kelly personally. I think he generally does the right thing whenever he can. I am somewhat bemused as to why the President was not in the Chamber yesterday although she was in the building. I presume that she did not want to play a part in this episode—that is my speculation—because she belongs to another Australian Labor Party faction. Therefore, the Hon. Tony Kelly did what he had to do—

    The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: Madam President, I think you should advise the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans that if he wishes to attack you he should do so by way of substantive motion or avoid doing so altogether.

    The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: To the point of order: The President is in the chair and she is quite capable of looking after herself. I put it to the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti that my comments were not disparaging in any way of the President and her integrity.

    The PRESIDENT: Order! There was no imputation or implication against the President. Consequently there is no point of order.

    The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The President has retained her dignity in this matter. I am disappointed by the actions of the Hon. Tony Kelly, who is being condemned in this motion for the actions of his Government. However, if a person can act but chooses not to do so—regardless of the pressures applied—that person must stand condemned for his or her actions or inaction. I would prefer it if this motion were worded differently but, faced with supporting it or opposing it in its current form, I choose to support it. I would like the motion to be changed to a censure motion or amended to condemn the Government more broadly, but I do not intend to amend it.

    The Hon. RICHARD JONES [11.47 a.m.]: I understand the Opposition's frustration at being unable to move a motion of no confidence yesterday when the Deputy-President left the chair. One can also understand Opposition members' fury at not having their points of order acknowledged by the Deputy-President while he was in the President's chair. The fact is that, according to precedent, the Deputy-President correctly did precisely what he was able to do—although it was extremely frustrating for the Opposition. I believe the Opposition has picked the wrong target: The real target should surely be the Leader of the House. A motion should be moved against him because he presumably orchestrated yesterday's manoeuvre.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: So there was collusion.

    The Hon. RICHARD JONES: The action was obviously organised in both Houses. Because the Government was short of numbers, no confidence motions would probably have been moved in both Houses and, as a consequence, the Government may have fallen in the lower House. It would not have fallen in the upper House, but a motion of no confidence in the Leader of the House or in the Special Minister of State could have been moved and, if it had succeeded, that Minister would have had to resign. I suppose that the Leader of the House was not prepared to take that risk. If the motion were directed at the Leader of the House, I suspect that it might have more support in this place. However, I think the Opposition has the wrong target in the Hon. Tony Kelly, who did precisely what he could do according to precedent.

    Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.48 a.m.]: This motion was obviously prepared in haste in response to the Opposition's anger over yesterday's events. If the Hon. Tony Kelly had heard points of order after he said that he would leave the chair until the ringing of the long bell—there was no motion to adjourn the House—the House would have started to conduct its business and a debate would have ensued. As honourable members know, debate on points of order can take a long time. One wonders when debate on the matter would have come to a conclusion. Having been a member of Parliament for almost 20 years, I try—although it is not easy—to ask myself the question: If the situation were reversed and the Coalition were in government, what would it do? The Coalition would do exactly as the Hon. Tony Kelly did.

    The Hon. Charlie Lynn: How do you know?

    Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am a realist. I am dealing with this matter realistically. No government would allow a House of Parliament to continue to sit when its members were not present in the House and a no confidence motion, or other motion, could be agreed to against the Government. I understand from talking to unionists yesterday that they were staging a blockade and were targeting the right-wing members of the Government who were supporting the workers compensation legislation. If left-wing members decided not to enter, that is another matter. In particular, the unionists were seeking to prevent the Premier from attending Parliament. However, he was able to gain access. Having acted at times in the position of Deputy-President, I know that the presence of a Minister is essential for the conduct of business of the House. It could be argued that the House could sit without a Minister. But the Minister guides the House as to what legislation will be proceeded with and the order of business of the House.

    The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Stop rationalising.

    Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am saying that that is the reason why a Minister should be present in the House. The Opposition raised the issue of a Minister deciding not to enter the House. That is another question. Legally, there was no Minister in the House and I am speaking to the motion that has been moved. The Hon. Tony Kelly carried out his duties within the conventions and precedents of the House. The Coalition is not justified in moving this most serious motion to sack the Chairman of Committees. The only motion more serious would be to call for the sacking of the President. An Opposition member said that the House will sack him and then re-elect him. I do not believe that the Hon. Tony Kelly should have the slur of being sacked as Chairman of Committees merely for political purposes.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: We are not going to reappoint him.

    Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The statement was made by Opposition members that they had no objection to him being re-elected. In fact, I am quoting the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He said that when we were talking about this matter.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: The next time you quote statements from crossbench meetings to the Parliament we will reconsider attending such meetings.

    Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I was not going to quote you.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: You already have.

    Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I was not quoting any particular member until the Deputy Leader of the Opposition denied it. It is not an edifying strategy to sack the Chairman of Committees and to re-elect him later. That is another reason why I am not happy with this approach. An issue raised by the Hon. John Jobling, which I regard as a genuine concern, is how and when the House will reassemble if the Government decides not to reassemble the House. That is a legitimate question that could be raised by either side of Parliament, depending on who is in government. When the House adjourns for a long period a motion is moved to give power to the majority of members to recall the House. Perhaps in the future if the ringing of the long bell is used, a motion could be passed that members could request the Clerk to reconvene the House. Such a motion would provide a procedure for the House to be in charge of its own destiny and would prevent any misuse of the ringing of the long bell by either side of politics.

    The ringing of the long bell has been a regular practice in this House. The records show that between 1988 and 1994 the ringing of the long bell was used nine times and that occurred five times during a period when the Coalition was in government. From memory, some of those occurred when the Coalition Government was in complete disarray and needed time to sort out the situation. The House accepted the ringing of the long bell, whereas the Opposition could have been argumentative and prevented the Government proceeding. However, the Opposition agreed so that the Government could hold conferences and try to resolve a state of confusion. The ringing of the long bell may seem unusual to members who have been recently elected. But it is not unusual at all. It has occurred regularly and the House has accepted that practice to allow the government of the day to resolve a particular situation, as occurred yesterday. For those reasons I believe the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition is heavy-handed, and therefore the Christian Democratic Party will not support it.

    The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [11.56 a.m.]: I wish to contradict statements made by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans during this debate. As I have previously said in debate, yesterday I was involved in trying to obtain access to Parliament House. Clearly, it was not a question of being given an option of agreeing to the demands of the unionists in the blockade. First, the police were not prepared to guarantee my security past a specific point. I have taken issue with that matter and will continue to do so. Second, I was advised by a particular union member who was conducting traffic that I could either agree with a deferment of the debate on the workers compensation legislation or I could not pass. I was in favour of a deferment of the workers compensation legislation, and I was happy to say so. That was not an issue. However, had I not agreed to his request, I am convinced that I would not have been able to pass. That needed to be said, contrary to the remarks of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans in this House.

    The second point I wish to address is that I was present when the Hon. Tony Kelly took the chair and the Hon. John Johnson took what I thought was a point of order about a Minister not being present. I was somewhat outraged at the time that debate was not allowed from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. John Jobling. However, I have since looked at the issue and spoken with people who are more knowledgeable than I about such matters. I now understand that having stated that a Minister is not present the Parliament hits a brick wall and further debate cannot be entered into. Irrespective of my feelings at the time—which were wrong—I find that the actions of the Hon. Tony Kelly were appropriate. Therefore I do not support this motion.

    The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [11.59 a.m.]: Yesterday, as result of the absence for whatever reason of a Minister or Ministers, the presiding officer decided, according to the practice of this House, to leave the chair. Obviously, no point of order could be taken. The Hon. Tony Kelly did the right thing. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was involved in any conspiracy. I see no reason to support the motion.

    The Hon. PETER BREEN [11.59 a.m.]: I was interested to hear the Hon. Malcolm Jones say that when he was in the House yesterday and the Hon. Tony Kelly was in the chair he heard the Hon. John Johnson say, "Point of order." I also heard him say, "Point of order." At the time I was surprised that other people were not heard on the point of order. I now understand that, according to convention, when no Minister is in the House the House ought to be adjourned. However, it is only a convention. This morning I was handed an advisory note detailing other instances when this convention had been used. I do not know who gave me the note. I was interested to read that there is no precedent of a Minister not being in the House technically but standing outside the door.

    Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

         Contact us | Job opportunities | RSS feeds | Site help
Copyright & conditions of use | Privacy | Authorised user login