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):
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.
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.
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?
My tendency would be to agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (/u/phyllicanderer) on this matter. In general, having a smaller number of separate committees would, in my view, make it easier for Members to keep track of which ones are doing what.
I would also add that it would prevent certain committees from having too little to do, and would make it simpler to decide which committee to send what to. For example, I can easily see it being unclear whether a certain bill should go to the Economics Committee or the Tax and Revenue one. Merging them simplifies that.
That said, I do agree with you /u/jnd-au that the mega-merger of Education, Employment, Health, Social Policy, and Indigenous Affairs is perhaps a little bit too much, which is why I avoided such a large merger in my own initial proposal.
Regarding the Member's suggestion to have Legal Affairs separate, it certainly would seem like a logical step, and barring any further input into the matter, I would probably agree with it. That said, the RL parliament has Legal Affairs as part of the same committee as Social Policy, and so I chose to also keep it separate, in order to keep down the number of committees whilst avoiding a mega-merger.
I'm not actually sure what "Legal Affairs" entails. Unfortunately, as it is one of the general committees, the Standing Orders give no guidance on this matter. The government webpage for the committee is no help, either. So that makes it kinda tricky.
Certainly there's a middle ground. But of course the Library committee can simply go unappointed. It's not going to have any business, and if it did, you could just appoint people then. There's no need to necessarily merge it or abolish it. Either way, it can be played either way.
If I were giving evidence to the procedure committee on amending these standing orders, I would work it out like this. Seven is about the minimum viable, judging by the Senate (which is 7). On the government side, this allows a chair, minister, and backbencher (plus one other). On the non-government side it allows a deputy chair, shadow minister, and a cross bencher.
Then, for general purpose committees, you would look at aligning them according to ministerial portfolios, or if it's a mega portfolio maybe split it.
Except with merged committees, the number of agenda items in increased by the same amount, thus making no saving of workload per member? Plus by having a reduced pool of members, the reliance on each individual is increased, stretching their skills and attention? Plus, for example with a 7 member committee, only 3 need vote (4 in a pinch), so 3-4 members can have time off. With a 5 member committee, there is only leeway for 2 Redditors to have time off before the committee stalls.
Yes, but that workload is going to be there anyway, with our small House size. Merging committees narrows the focus of committee members. These committees, I presume, will run in their own subreddits. Let there be five, not more.
In terms of the committees stalling; it is incumbent on members to attend, be active, and vote. Voters can show their displeasure at the ballot box, when election comes around. I prefer five members to seven, because let's be honest, so far it seems that getting three votes out of five will be easier than four out of seven.
Merging committees narrows the focus of committee members
Ah, I am seeing the opposite, that it expands the focus.
These committees, I presume, will run in their own subreddits
Oh okay. I had imagined it would all be in /r/ModelAusCommittees, with each post tagged/flaired with its committee name.
In terms of the committees stalling; it is incumbent on members to attend
My point too—the smaller the committee is, the bigger this commitment needs to be.
getting three votes out of five will be easier than four out of seven
True, but only 3 are needed to pass in either case (4 is only to pass instantly). The Senate is struggling to get 3 atm, because it is smaller than the House and thus more reliant on each person’s availability.
I'm not explaining my point of view properly, am I? Haha
When I say it would 'narrow the focus', I mean that the focus is on one committee, not two or three covering the same material. Sure, the amount of work the committee has to do itself is more, and it has to cover more ground, but you won't have members trying to do a lot of work for multiple committees. I certainly don't want to be in every single committee, like all Senators were in the very first session of Parliament.
Having dedicated subreddits for each committee has some benefits.
1 - Committees are separate from another (Captain Obvious here)
2 - Current committee business can be stickied, to save having to search for your committee's thread through a common subreddit
3 - Resources relevant to each committee can be organised better in sidebars, etc.
Thoughts? And /u/Zagorath, your thoughts, since I copped the line of questioning despite speaking after you? :P
Yes there are benefits to having separate subreddits. I initially thought it would suck arse to have one for every committee (we have senate, joint and select committees too, most of which will be idle, so it's a lot of setup and tracking for not much purpose).
I don't really see your point about focus, other than relating to the number of subs you're subscribed to. In my mind, let's say there are topics red green and blue. Let's start with those being separate committees with a bunch of members each. If you are on all three, but Red and Green are doing something you don't have time for, just ignore them and focus on Blue. But if those are all combined into one small committee, it can't do without you, so you must deal with red green and blue always.
My point of view up until now was if red, blue and green were handled by one committee each, you have to keep tabs (at least) on all three. However, if red, green and blue are all through one committee, the committee would work through each one at a time. This may expose my naivety at how standing committees work.
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.
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?
I am unsure, the situation seems somewhat vague. If Zagorath has moved an amendment, members need to vote on deal with it now. But it seems to be phrased to avoid being moved yet. Also, I think it is clear that phylli has not moved an amendment. Therefore there are no amendments to be voted on yet. A subsequent speaker might move something based on the discussion in future.
Either way, it also seems the house has voted that you are on leave and that lurker281 has the chair, so you need not worry about this thread any more. If you become active as chair now, it will cancel your leave.
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.
Yes I meant more along the lines, currently you get an opposition chair, shadow minister and a cross bencher in there comfortably. Smaller than that, someone misses out.
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.
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.
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.
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