Motion - Time Limits Sessional Order

Tuesday 11 August 2026

[12.54 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I'll just give a little background on where this has come from. When I first came to this Chamber in 2011, I must admit I was really quite surprised that there were no time limits, having come from local government where we had five minutes and then, if you were really lucky, you got an extension of three minutes - so eight minutes in which to put forward your view, often on very complex planning matters. So you knew that you had to be succinct. You had to put it forward very plainly what you're wanting to say, to try to get other members' support. I was surprised when I did arrive here and gosh, you talked for as long as you like.

In 2014, I decided I'd move a motion regarding time limits. From memory, I think I lost by two votes and was told by some members at the time it was a very brave move in this House to try to move time limits. I decided I must be consistent because I felt it was important.

In March 2023, I moved a motion, which this time was successful, to send the suggestion of time limits to our Standing Orders Committee regarding the feasibility of time limits and suggested time limits, and to allow, because I thought it was very appropriate, the Standing Orders Committee to look at it and determine whether it's appropriate to have time limits and what they should be. It certainly wasn't up to me.

The latest motion that I have before us today will provide a trial and therefore evidence whether the time limits work or whether they don't work. It also provides evidence for the Standing Orders Committee to be able to look at it and see how the trial has gone.

This sessional order is about ensuring that this Council can continue to perform its role as a house of review effectively and efficiently throughout the 52nd Parliament.

It's important at the outset to be clear about what this motion does and what it does not do. It does not amend our Standing Orders, it does not diminish the rights of any member, it does not prevent anyone from placing relevant matters on the record, and it certainly does not diminish the Council's capacity to scrutinise legislation or hold governments to account.

What it does do is establish a clear and predictable framework for the conduct of debate during this parliament, while preserving the ability of the Council to extend time whenever circumstances require. The order applies to key stages of our proceedings, including second reading debates on bills, Committee stage consideration of bills, Committee stage consideration of amendments, third reading debates, government motions and private members' motions.

This proposal seeks to balance two important objectives. The first is ensuring every member has a meaningful opportunity to participate and debate and scrutinise legislation. The second is ensuring the Council can conduct its business efficiently, transparently and in a way that's understandable to the public. These objectives are not in conflict. Indeed, they reinforce one another. We are and always will be a house of review - that's our constitutional role and that's our responsibility to the Tasmanian people.

But review is not measured simply by the number of hours we spend speaking. Review is measured by the quality of our scrutiny. It's measured by whether we identify flaws in legislation, test the government's arguments, expose risks, improve proposals and ensure that the consequences of decisions are properly understood.

This sessional order supports that purpose by establishing a structure that encourages focused, relevant and accessible debate while retaining appropriate flexibility when additional time is genuinely required. Good scrutiny is not the absence of structure. This sessional order recognises that reality. The speaking times proposed are, I believe, reasonably generous.

For second reading debates, the member moving the bill may speak for up to 60 minutes and retains a right of reply for a further 60 minutes. Every other member may also speak for up to 60 minutes. For government and private members' motions, both the mover and every other member may speak for up to 60 minutes. These are substantial speaking times by any parliamentary standard. No‑one could reasonably suggest that an hour is insufficient time to articulate a position, examine legislation, or place concerns on the record.

The Committee stage arrangements are equally important. Committee is where much of the detailed scrutiny occurs. It's where legislation is examined clause by clause. It's where members seek explanations, test propositions and explore the practical operation of laws. That's why this motion preserves a member's ability to speak up to three times on the same question during Committee consideration, with each contribution lasting up to 15 minutes.

When amendments are before the Council, the member moving the amendment may speak for up to 15 minutes and members may again speak three times to the amendment with contributions of up to 10 minutes each. Those provisions recognise -

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

[2.58 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Having commended my contribution before the lunch break with a bit of a preamble, and history of this motion, I move -

That the Legislative Council agree that, for the duration of the 52nd Parliament (or until further order), the following Sessional Order apply to proceedings in the Legislative Council:

(1)     Application - this Sessional Order applies to:

(a)     Second reading speeches on bills;

(b)     Contributions during Committee stage consideration of a bill or matter (including multiple speaks);

(c)     Third reading speeches on bills;

(d)     Government or Private members' motions;

(e)     Contributions in response to Government or Private members' motions;

(2)     Second Reading Speeches - Time Limits

(a)     The Member moving the Second Reading may speak for up to 60 minutes.

(b)     The Member who moved the Second Reading may speak for up to 60 minutes in reply.

(c)     Any other Member may speak for up to 60 minutes.

(3)     Government or Private members' motions - Time Limits

(a)     The Member moving the motion may speak for up to 60 minutes.

(b)     Any other Member may speak for up to 60 minutes.

(4)     Committee Stage - Time Limits

(a)     Each Member may speak up to three (3) times to the same question, in accordance with the Council's procedures.

(b)     Each contribution ('speak') by a Member is limited to 15 minutes.

(5)     Committee Stage - Amendments

(a)     The Member moving an amendment may speak up to 15 minutes.

(b)     Each Member may speak up to three (3) times to the same amendment in accordance with the Council's Standing Orders.

(c)     Each contribution ('speak') by a Member is limited to 10 minutes.

(6)     Third Reading - Time Limits

(a)     The Member moving the Third Reading may speak for up to 15 minutes.

(b)     The Member who moved the Third Reading may speak for up to 15 minutes in reply.

(c)     Any other Member may speak for up to 10 minutes.

(7)     Inaugural Speech Time Limits

(a)     A Member shall be entitled to speak for an unlimited period of time.

(8)     Extensions and Flexibility

(a)     The time limits in clauses 2-4 may be extended:

(i)      By leave of the Council; or

(ii)     On motion, without notice, moved at any time by any Member and determined without debate.

(b)     A Motion under 5(a)(ii) must specify:

(i)      The Member(s) to whom the extension applies;

(ii)     The additional time proposed; and

(iii)    The reason why an extension is requested.

(c)     Where a Member is addressing the question and is near the expiry of time, the Chair may allow the Member to conclude their remarks, consistent with orderly conduct of business.

(9)     Effect

(a)     This Sessional Order operates as a temporary Order of the Council for the purposes set out in Clause 1.

Just to go back to where I was before the lunch break, as I said, I did give a little bit of a history, the fact that I first moved a similar motion in 2014. So, getting on to the Committee stage arrangements that are equally important: the Committee is where much of the detailed scrutiny occurs. It's where legislation is examined clause by clause; it's where members seek explanations, test propositions, and explore the practical operation of laws. That's why this motion preserves a member's ability to speak up to three times on the same question during Committee consideration, with each contribution lasting up to 15 minutes.

When amendments are before the Council, the member moving the amendment may speak for up to 15 minutes, and members may again speak three times to the amendment, with contributions up to 10 minutes each. Those provisions recognise that scrutiny is often at its most effective when members can engage in a genuine exchange of questions, answers and propositions.

At the third reading stage, the mover may speak for up to 15 minutes and exercise a right of reply for up to 15 minutes, with other members allotted up to 10 minutes.

Importantly, this motion preserves a longstanding parliamentary tradition by ensuring that inaugural speeches remain entirely unrestricted. Newly elected members deserve the opportunity to address this Chamber for the first time without limitation, and this order expressly protects that principle.

I believe it's also important to recognise how parliamentary debate is viewed beyond this Chamber. Most Tasmanians do not spend their days reading Hansard from cover to cover. They encounter parliament through headlines, news reports, social media, live streams and short excerpts from our proceedings. For them, clarity matters. When debate is well structured and focused on the question before the Chair, it becomes easier for the public to understand what parliament is examining and why. They can see what issues are being tested, they can understand the arguments being advanced and they can judge for themselves whether parliament is doing its job. That visibility strengthens confidence in the parliamentary process. A structured debate framework helps achieve that outcome. It encourages all of us to focus on the central questions before the House.

So, what does this bill do? Who will it affect? What risks have been identified? What safeguards are needed? What questions remain unanswered? Those are the issues that matter. Those are the issues the public expects us to examine, and those are the issues that deserve our time and attention. Some may ask: why introduce a framework at all? My answer is simple: because structured speaking arrangements are normal throughout Australia, including in jurisdictions with strong and respected upper houses. They do not diminish scrutiny; they organise it.

Across Australia, most parliaments routinely operate with speaking limits. I believe there might be one house that doesn't have them. Committee time allocations procedures ensure debate remains focused and manageable while still preserving opportunities for detailed examination. The principle is well established; the lesson is equally clear. Structure and scrutiny are not opponents: they're partners.

One concern that may be raised is that members need the flexibility to address particularly complex matters, and I agree entirely. That's why this motion includes important safeguards. Where additional time is genuinely needed, it can be granted by leave of the Council. Alternatively, any member can move a motion without notice, and determined without debate, to extend speaking time. The Council therefore remains fully in control of its proceedings. If additional scrutiny is required, additional time can be provided. Nothing in this motion takes that power away. Indeed, that flexibility is one of its greatest strengths. It provides a structure for ordinary business while preserving discretion for exceptional circumstances.

Another concern may be that we already possess mechanisms to manage debate, and that's true; but there's value in establishing clear expectations from the outset. A predictable framework assists members in preparing contributions. It assists the orderly scheduling of business. It promotes fairness across the Chamber and it provides greater certainty to everyone involved in the parliamentary process.

Above all, this motion is measured and proportionate. It's not a permanent change; it's a sessional order. It applies for the duration of this parliament, unless the Council determines otherwise. It can be reviewed. It can be refined and, if necessary, it can be discontinued. That's the very nature of a sessional order. So, it's not a leap into the unknown; to my mind, it's a practical and cautious step that seeks to balance robust scrutiny with the efficient conduct of business.

I hear that some members are saying that perhaps we don't need this motion before us and that we can just simply stand up and say a member no longer be heard; but to my mind, who in this House, when someone is speaking, wants to stand up and say a member no longer be heard? No‑one wants to do that because someone may not be prepared, they may not have put their prime points in a certain part of their speech, and I think it's just something that no‑one would do.

So, we can remain a strong House of review, we can continue to hold governments to account, we can continue to subject legislation to detailed examination, and we can do all of that within a framework that promotes clarity, fairness and good parliamentary practice. I believe that this motion No. 13 before us, the Time Limit Sessional Orders that, as I've said, I've moved today on the Notice Paper, actually gives the Standing Orders Committee - and as mentioned earlier, I moved a motion in 2023 for this matter to go to the Standing Orders Committee - I believe this motion before us now, in a trial period, gives information and evidence for the Standing Orders Committee to actually look at it more wholesomely, more fully and make a decision whether we should or whether we shouldn't. So, if the trial period is not successful, then obviously it just can be discontinued. For those reasons, I commend the Sessional Order to the Council and ask members to support it.

[6.41 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Thank you, Mr President, and I thank the member for Hobart for the contribution and also for putting an amendment up. It's always good for robust debates for us to actually have our say. I certainly never want to stifle that.

Amending the Standing Orders is not something that can or should be done without a great deal of thought and evidence. I'm not going to go into any discussion we've had in the Standing Orders Committee because I don't believe it's appropriate for me to speak about what we're doing in the Standing Orders Committee. As far as I'm concerned, that's a confidential committee and I don't believe I should be saying what we've looked at and what we haven't looked at. As far as I'm concerned ‑

Ms O'Connor - Well, I mean, in this case -

Ms ARMITAGE - But it's not appropriate for me to go into what we're looking at in the Standing Orders Committee, as a member of the committee, but what I am going to say is what my sessional order will provide to the Standing Orders Committee. It has had this question that I've put before it since March 2023. It is a difficult thing. It's a lot of work for the Standing Orders Committee to review all the Standing Orders, and I see that my sessional order will provide that very committee, which already has the request to look at time limits, the ability and the evidence to see how the trial has gone.

No-one knows how long this term of government will go. It might last, it might go for three years, it might go for one month, but there's nothing stopping - If members are not happy with whatever time limits we have in place - and regarding the member for McIntyre, we've had a discussion about changing third readings - but if members are not happy with any time limits they get up today - and I'm only one member, so the Chamber has to agree to it; I can simply put it up, but it's up to the Chamber to agree whether we have it or not. There's nothing stopping someone actually moving a motion during that period to cancel the sessional order. It's a sessional order, which means it is a trial. If it works, it works. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

Would it last for three years? Maybe not. It's up to the Chamber. Therefore, I do ask the members not to support the current amendment because it's already before the Standing Orders Committee, where it's been for three years. This is purely a sessional order to give them some evidence to see how it's working, so the members of the committee can see how it's working. If it doesn't look like members are happy with it, any member can move an order to cease the sessional order. To me it's a trial. I won't go on, but I would ask that members realise it is with the Standing Orders Committee already. It's purely a trial. Anyone can stop it at any time. It's purely up to the Chamber.

[9.00 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Thank you, Mr President, and I firstly would like to congratulate the member for Huon as well. It was a very enjoyable speech actually and really good to listen to; I would love to hear a lot more about some of those stories that you mentioned in it. Mr President, I also would like to thank everyone for their contributions, whether they're for or against. I think it's really important that everyone has their say. And you know, I certainly take on board the comments whether people support the motion or don't.

But I do reiterate that this sessional order is a trial; it does not permanently take away any speaking rights. We've heard that once it's gone, it's hard to get back. I don't believe that to be true because we're not giving anything away. Once the order is finished, it would have to be brought back and debated again to continue for a new government.

And perhaps at that time, the Standing Orders Committee will have looked into the matter and made a decision, yes or no, with the hindsight of the trial. Now, some may say all party members have spoken, but I see that as really good, that all electorates have a voice. So, rather than saying, you know, parties have more speak times, I see that as every electorate should have a say. This motion is flexible and it's temporary. There may be rare and extraordinary contributions, and members can request extra time. It would simply be up to the Council.

It would be up to the Standing Orders Committee to look at the Standing Orders and make a decision accordingly as well with regard to time limits. So, I believe the sessional order provides support to the Standing Orders Committee on their review of Standing Orders.

As mentioned, I have no doubt that a permanent decision in changing Standing Orders would involve much discussion and consultation, but this sessional order is not a permanent change. I think it's really important to point out it's not a permanent change. It is simply a trial for the continuation of this session of parliament and, of course, any member at any time, if they don't feel that it's working, can bring another order to cease it.

It takes considerable time to review the Standing Orders, which is obvious, given that the issue has been with the committee since 2023. I am hopeful that this sessional order will assist the committee whether it supports the time limits or not.