1. CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee
How many submissions have been received on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)?
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) Link to this
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has received 295 submissions on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and 7,554 form submissions.
Is it the intention of the committee to express its regret to the submitter whose submission was rejected for being offensive—
Mr SPEAKERThe member will resume her seat. That is totally out of order. The chair of the committee cannot predetermine what a committee may decide to do. So that question is, I am afraid, totally out of order.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this is not a matter of predetermination. The member asked “Is it the intention of the committee …”. If the committee has such an intention, the chair can report that.
As I understand it, the committee has not reported to the House, so its proceedings would be confidential.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. But if, as I know is the case, the committee has determined on a matter of expression of regret—
The member will resume his seat immediately. I have made it very clear that that is one rule I insist on: members must resume their seats. The member is now debating the issue, and he is at serious risk if he is telling the House what has gone on in a committee before the committee has reported to the House. The member should not be doing that. The member may be aware of something, but that is confidential to the committee. He has no more right to inform the House of the deliberations of the committee than the chair has.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you then saying that the chair, on the agreement of the committee, cannot write a letter to someone expressing regret until the committee has reported? That would be a very new ruling. That is what the committee, I understand, has determined. Are you saying that that letter cannot go out, and the committee chair would be breaching privilege if he did so?
That is the business of the committee, as I would understand it, but it is not the business of this House at present. [ Interruption] This should be heard in silence. This House cannot deal with the matter until it is reported. The committee, of course, is at liberty to conduct its business and its affairs, but I have to distinguish between that and what is proper for this House to consider. That was why I have ruled out the question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to keep going on, but I think it is new. My understanding is that a decision of a committee to, in this particular case, ask someone to resubmit, which must have involved a communication outside the committee—a further invitation to a submitter to make a submission to the committee—cannot possibly be privileged information to the committee. Therefore, to ask about the committee’s intention to do that is, in fact, within the Standing Orders. It is a request to an individual to make a resubmission. That must be something that is public. It is part of the chairman’s responsibility to sign the letter, if nothing else, and to express regret on behalf of the committee. I cannot see how that can possibly be done in such a way that the chairman cannot be asked about his responsibilities in this matter.
Listening to the member’s points of order, there seems to me to be a slight inconsistency. I understood that the member told me that the committee—and I have to be careful because I do not want to get involved in the business of the committee—had made a decision and sent a letter, but then, in a further point of order, the member spoke of an intention to send a letter. Either way this is the business of the committee. The chair is not responsible for the committee decision, and cannot answer in the House for that committee decision until the matter is reported back. If a press statement has been authorised and released by the committee and is in the public arena, the chair could indeed be questioned about that, but not about the committee’s intentions.
I do have to be careful here. I will undertake to the member, because it is important, that if I have got it wrong in my ruling, I will come back to the House on the matter. I do not believe that I have got it wrong, but I am perfectly happy to accept that I may be wrong. If I am wrong, I will come back to the House on the matter.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Given that, can I ask for the opportunity to rephrase the supplementary question?
No, I do not think it is fair for me to allow a member to rephrase a supplementary question on behalf of another member.
No, the Standing Orders do not provide for another member in the House to ask a supplementary question, as I understand it, to another member’s question to a member. I realise that is a bit convoluted, but it has not been the practice. However, I now gather that the Standing Orders do not preclude it, so, given my ruling, I will allow the Hon Trevor Mallard to ask a supplementary question. I invite him to ask his supplementary question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Has the chair of the committee written a letter, or signed a letter, or considered a letter inviting another submission on this bill, and expressing regret?
Hon John CarterI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, you have just ruled that the committee’s business—and it has always been the Standing Order—is its own until it reports to Parliament. As you have said, if a committee issues a press statement and makes a public statement, that is one thing, but if the chairman is carrying out the business of the committee while it is going through its deliberations and considerations, that is a matter for the committee and not for the House.
The House has been very careful over many years not to cross those lines. I would suggest that that question is now asking the chairman of the committee about the business of the committee, prior to it reporting to Parliament. If we go down that line, it starts to mean that where a submitter has made a submission in public before the committee, the House, before the committee has deliberated, could ask about that submission. I am not sure that that is where Parliament wants to go or needs to go, quite honestly. I would ask, Mr Speaker, that you reflect very carefully on your ruling in that regard, because it would mean that we may be opening up new ground.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I agree with a lot of what the Hon John Carter has said, but he did indicate that if the committee had issued a press statement inviting a further submission, or submissions, that would be all right. My submission to you, Mr Speaker, is that there is no difference between issuing a press statement and writing a letter that invites a submission.
Let me rule on this matter, because I take it as a serious issue. The points of order have been raised in good faith, and I appreciate that, because we do not want to politicise in this House the important select committee process. The question, in fairness, did not ask about a committee decision that is still confidential to the committee; it asked whether the chair had written to invite a further submission, or something along those lines.
I will invite David Bennett to answer the question in so far as whether he has written a letter but not in so far as whether he has considered something, because if he has written a letter that has been sent to someone out there, that is, as the Hon Trevor Mallard has pointed out, not hugely different from issuing a press statement. It is a matter that is out in public in that a letter has been written to someone. So I invite David Bennett to respond to the question in so far as it covers whether he has written, as chair, to someone.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you put the chairman of the committee in a dangerous position here. The precedent of the House is built on the nature of committee decisions and the work of committees being in committee until they have reported back to the House. If you are asking the chair about anything that may have gone on in the committee, then you are de facto asking the chair, in this case, to actually break that rule of thumb. So I would be very reluctant to answer that question, on the basis that it would create a precedent that would be in conflict with the traditional process of how committees operate.
Let me be very clear: if the Speaker rules the question in order, the member will answer it. Let there be no question about that. If the matter is a matter of a committee decision, and there has not been any communication with the public, then I do not expect the member to answer it.
The question did not ask whether the committee had made a decision to do something, because that would have been out of order; the member asked whether the chair had invited a submission, or a further submission, or something along those lines—I do not remember the exact detail, and maybe the question needs to be repeated so that everyone can hear it. But what I am indicating is that if the chair has taken action as the chair and sent a letter to someone, I believe that it is in order to answer that. I am not expecting the member to answer whether he is considering, or the committee is considering, some course of action; I am not asking the member to answer that. But if the chair has taken an action to write a letter to someone inviting a submission, then I believe that it is in order to answer that.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Listening to this exchange I sense that the problem that the House now has is that there is information that the select committee has that the House is not aware of, and that it may have made a decision in the context of whatever that information is, and at this stage it is quite apparent that the chairman does not feel able to advise the House of it until he reports.
Mr Speaker, why I got to my feet is to say that I think we may be getting into a very difficult area here in that although the ruling you made may be appropriate, we will not know until we know all the circumstances. I wonder whether in this instance we may not be better to ask you to give a considered ruling, rather than a direction at this stage, so that you as Speaker can get all the facts and then make an appropriate ruling. I do worry that although on the surface the ruling you made would apparently be quite an appropriate one, there may be other factors that you, and I, and the House are unaware of that put the chairman in a difficult position. I would doubt very much whether you or this House would want to do that to any chairman of a select committee. I just urge caution as we move forward on this position, given that we have had this issue before Parliament for many years.
We have taken quite sufficient time on considering the issue of order. The issue of order is pretty clear. The Speaker is not interested in the detail, because the Speaker has no right to be involved in the detail. The issue is one of the Standing Orders.
In respect of the question, the chair of the committee could say that the committee has made a decision on a certain course of action and that he does not intend to divulge it to the House, and that would be a perfectly acceptable answer. Chairs of committees are grown up people, and they are perfectly capable of answering questions in this House, or they should not be chairs of committees. If that is the situation, it cannot be pursued further.
The chair of a committee, though, is empowered to call for submissions. The chair does not need the approval of the committee to call for submissions. The chair can call for submissions, and can be asked in this House whether he has done that. The chair can be asked whether the committee has called for submissions. I want to make clear the only part of this question I feel the chair needs to answer, and the answer is up to the chair, depending what went on in the committee—and I do not want to know that. If the chair has taken action to invite a submission or a further submission and that was not a decision of the committee, then the chair should answer the question. If it is a matter that was the decision of the committee, then it cannot be pursued further until the committee has reported.
But the chair is answerable for the chair’s actions, and the chair does have authority over the calling of submissions. I make that clear. If the committee made a decision to call for further submissions, and the member wishes to advise the House that, then that is the end of the matter—it cannot be pursued further. If the member has, as chair, written to someone inviting a further submission, then that is a legitimate matter to be answered under the Standing Orders.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The difficulty is that in many cases the chair may be acting in respect of a decision of the committee. If one terms the question in the way that Mr Mallard has, it in essence is asking the chair what the committee decision has been.
I thought I had made myself perfectly clear. If the matter was the subject of a decision of the committee, the chair need only tell the House that and that is the end of it—he does not need to answer the question. The decisions of the committee are not matters that the chair can be questioned on prior to reporting back.
However, if the chair has acted independently to call for submissions, if the chair has acted without a decision of the committee to call for submissions, the chair can be questioned on that. Often chairs are asked in the House whether they have called for submissions or whether submissions have been called for on a certain bill. So if the matter was the subject of a decision of the committee, the chair needs only to tell the House that a certain action was taken in response to a decision of the committee, and that is the end of the matter. He does not even need to detail what action it was. If the question was the subject of a decision of the committee, that is the end of the matter. I invite David Bennett to answer the question.
In this case, the subject of the decision was a matter for the full committee, so there is no more to be said.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this is a matter for further consideration by you. I do not want to go on for too long now, but I ask you to think carefully about where we have got to on this. The traditional questions about decisions of committees, about calling for submissions and dates by which they are due—on which there have been lots of questions to chairs of select committees in the past—could not be asked if the committee was involved in the decision. We might be traversing new grounds if we end up with that.
Can I ask you just to think about where we have ended up and the precedents, the areas that previously were subject to questions. There is no doubt that when a press statement had been issued on behalf of a committee by a chair, they could have been questioned about it in the past. I think they might not be, under your ruling.
I hear the member, and I do not need to hear further; the House has taken sufficient time. I hear the member and I will do that, because I do not want to have made rulings that compromise the conventions of the House in this particular matter—it is not my intention. But the member will note I have tried to accommodate his supplementary question, and I have tried to accommodate the concerns of the acting Leader of the House. If I have erred in any of my decisions today, I will most certainly come back to the House to clarify the matter further.