11 August 2026

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - I rise today to speak to the proposed time limit session order introduced by the member for Launceston. However, I do congratulate the member for Huon for your speech and I thought it was really good. So, congratulations. I also thank the member for Murchison for her experienced contribution, echoing quite a bit of what I'm going to present now, but I'll return. I like to think about what is the problem or issue that we're trying to fix with this.

The arguments for and against speaking times are well known, and I acknowledge the honourable member for bringing her motion to this place. However, I do not believe the Legislative Council as a house of review, or the Tasmanian public, will gain any benefit from yet more restrictive regulation. I believe this proposal will directly inhibit the work of this place and further erode public trust in political processes. Supporters may argue that speaking limits might increase our efficiency, would reduce unnecessary delay and encourage targeted debate. These are not problems or issues that I've observed in the Tasmanian Legislative Council. As a house of review, fulsome and informed debate must be encouraged and given the time it needs to produce well-considered discourse. Time barriers in this place are neither necessary nor, I believe, appropriate.

I recognise there's a great deal of important and significant business to deal with in this parliament, and some of which may well be highly controversial. Members will progress the work with sound proposals, clear communication, genuine engagement and hard graft from those bringing forward legislation and other motions. Imposing speaking limits has the risk of preventing the members of this House from doing their jobs properly. The best way to improve efficiency is through sound parliamentary process and good government practice, and not relying on another logjam of legislation the government seeks to force through at the end of the calendar year. With that in place, this House, and the legislation it examines, will be better for it.

There are several clear reasons why speaking limits are not appropriate in our Legislative Council. The independent character of this place allows the rigorous debate expected of an open parliamentary system. We have nothing to hide. The public has nothing to fear from our fierce independence. Limiting that debate would inevitably weaken the thorough democratic scrutiny this Council is here to provide. Nor does this House abuse the privilege of speaking. Members do not filibuster or speak simply to waste time. In speaking as an independent, like many of my fellow members, we are largely beyond the constraints of the party political process. We use that privilege to express our thoughts and concerns and represent the views of our constituents and properly debate the matters before us.

We ask questions of the government and suggest improvements and propose amendments to legislation. Of course, several recent legislative proposals have prompted lengthy speeches, and rightly so. Members on all sides have generally agreed that those proposals were significant and deserved careful examination through proper parliamentary process. Sometimes, though, thorough scrutiny takes time, and we should not place an arbitrary limit on it as if we were billing by the minute. We are not lawyers, we are legislators. For instance, during the debate on the Macquarie Point stadium proposal late last year, the Premier himself said that scrutiny improves proposals and that the primary role of the upper house is to provide that scrutiny. He spoke positively about the Legislative Council's role and process and acknowledged that the marathon session had thoroughly tested the stadium proposal and would lead to a better result. Similar comments have been made by the members of the opposition as well as independent and Green members in this House and the other place.

Another important point is that legislation is not being put to a hostile upper house. Despite some criticism directed at this Council, we work constructively, challenging the government where appropriate, and with other members who bring forward legislation, motions, and speeches. We recognise priorities, we encourage positive communication and do what we can to meet reasonable timelines. The government is not battling an uncooperative upper House; quite the opposite in fact, as they receive legitimate, respectful, and constructive feedback with the opportunity to respond.

Earlier this year we worked with the government to ensure that the Local Government Amendment (Targeted Reform) Bill 2026 was passed within its requested time frame. If members wanted to obstruct parliamentary business by the misuse of speaking time, they would not be working with the other honourable members to expedite priority legislation, and if a member did deliberately choose to misuse unrestricted time limits to thwart open debate, the Legislative Council, as we've heard, already has ways to hold them to account. However, that has not been necessary because this House does not, in my opinion, have that problem, and probably never will.

Having seen a government, unfortunately, in recent times that is hell bent on forcing enabling legislation for poorly considered ideas through the Tasmanian parliament, I believe that is inappropriate to constrain the ability of our House of review to debate them. Open speaking times allow debate in a way that can tease out potential problems and pitfalls before potentially faulty legislation makes its way onto the statute book. Complex proposals, proposals with far reaching consequences and proposals that have been poorly developed or explained must not be rushed through debate without being properly considered.

They need more than a quick once over and an all good here; they need careful, rigorous review, without an automatic limit on the time available. Indeed, sometimes there seems to be, or appears to be, a feeling that members in the other place let the legislation pass down there and expect complex but appropriate amendments by members in the upper House. Even legislation that may have been developed with the best of intentions can lead to unintended consequences. The diversity of backgrounds and knowledge in this place does lead to members playing a greater role at times than other members.

Mr President, we must only look back at what was the highly controversial Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014, and its provisions that were struck down by the High Court due to its unconstitutional failings. The government's response in the Police Offences Amendment (Workplace Protection) Bill 2022 came to us in this place, where following expansive debate and contributions from all sides, suitable amendments were made to protect those protesting workplace rights, and removing proposed increases to penalties for street obstruction that were originally sought by the government.

I'm not sure an equitable conclusion could have been reached on that bill with restricted time limits. More recently, we've seen the government's Greyhound Racing Legislation Amendments (Phasing Out Reform) Bill 2025 stall, its proposed legislation that has attracted a great deal of public and political attention, progress on which has been curtailed by the government as it probably foreshadowed its potential failure. A few honourable members have already made expansive contributions, and no doubt there are more speeches to come that may breach the time limits proposed in this motion. The Joint Standing Committee on Greyhound Racing Transition will continue its expanded work plan, and the government is still to respond to questions put by those few members that have already spoken.

The greyhound bill is just another example of poorly developed and poorly communicated proposals, which also consume time that could be spent quickly dealing with straightforward and worthwhile measures. Members in this place should not wish to shorten or curtail Legislative Council debates, and imposing speaking limits is not the right answer. The answer is for leaders to act in good faith, consult openly with the Tasmanian community before bringing controversial legislation; engage seriously with members' concerns here and in the other place; communicate early; engage respectfully with stakeholders; use established regulatory and advisory channels to inform legislation; and not to impose time constraints for proper debate.

I've called these the easy arguments because our political rebuttals are convenient to make, but they are also factually correct. The Legislative Council, as it currently operates, serves our political system and representative democracy very well. There is no need for this change, and imposing time restrictions would, I believe, weaken the effective system already in place; the case against speaking limits is not only about political convenience or responding to current circumstances. As members of parliament, we must also protect the integrity of the legislative process and preserve this Council's role as a calm and considered House of review. We are not merely a political institution; we're also custodians of sound democratic process and defenders of public trust. This is not merely an idealistic, aspirational assertion, but it may often seem so in today's age of politics; our upper House is one which sits in one of the most fair and properly democratic settings in recent history. It is our role as legislators to champion our democracy, especially in the House constitutionally entrusted as the House of review. These considerations of institutional integrity and acting as the bastion of proper process negate the need for imposed time limits in the Legislative Council.

To put it plainly: implementing strict time limits on every matter without regard to complexity would set the Legislative Council on a dangerous course. Legislative matters are not a one size fits all, but that reverses the onus. Instead of trusting members to use their time responsibly, it requires them to justify speaking beyond an accepted limit. Once a default limit is established, it will carry into the next parliament and those that follow. It will be seen as indulgent to exceed prescribed limits and may well be weaponised by opponents. Over time members will inevitably conform and the quality of their contributions will suffer.

If we look to other jurisdictions in their upper houses where they have them, they all come with a veritable smorgasbord of standing orders seeking to regulate members' contributions. These are all upper houses with significantly more members than us in this place. In larger houses with more members, I can understand that there may be some sense of how time limits, where they exist, may have come about. In reference to this point, I will consider it in terms of potential limits on second reading contributions, traditionally where the more expansive speeches are made.

If we look to the largest upper houses, two of which are New South Wales, with 42 members, and Victoria with 40 members, they both have complex, structured speaking limits based on the order of speaking, by whom, the hierarchy, and on the character of the bill, with speaking limits that can range in minutes from 60, 45, 40, 20, 15, 10 or down to just five for the lowest order speakers. I imagine the clerks in those places must be very familiar with their various stopwatches. Next, we have Western Australia with 37 members and a simple 45 minute limit. Lastly, we have South Australia with 22 members and our own Tasmanian Legislative Council with 15, both of which have unlimited speaking and second reading speaking times.

What is the problem, as we've heard from the Member for Murchison? We are the smallest House by far when compared to other states. Even South Australia, with half as many again, has no need for time limits. It's only the bigger mainland states that have them to expedite the larger cohorts of speakers that may want to contribute. It stands to reason that with only 15 members in this place dealing with the same legislation as the lower House with 35 members, that time restrictions would lead to an unacceptable time bias between the Chambers. It is true many speeches and debates do not need lengthy individual contributions; however, that does not mean that the default position of the Legislative Council should be to restrict its members from giving a full examination of a bill in the second reading speech.

Legislation proposals and motions can be complex and demanding. The most difficult matters are also becoming more complex than their predecessors. A report that once ran for 10 pages may now run to 100. A planning proposal that once affected a single council area, such as the recent Stony Rise development in Devonport, or just one of the regulatory systems, may now need to be considered in the context of the whole state and an expanding regulatory environment. Debate on complex matters of that kind should not be limited by default simply for us to be to be like the largest mainland states. Rigorous and comprehensive debate on complex matters and matters of serious public importance is a fundamental part of our political system.

Beyond the need to properly consider complex matters, speaking limits also threaten parliamentary representations. Members will know that I often include word for word the concerns and views Tasmanians have shared with me about the matters before us. Many other members do the same. I do not always agree with every view that I place on the record, nor do I need to endorse a constituent's concern to raise it. This goes back to the member for Murchison's point: our role is to ensure that those concerns are properly heard and recorded in Hansard for the future and to be tested by other honourable members through debate.

Indeed, a time constraint or limitation of speech length may well mean that members would need to focus on a preferred position or option, rather than fully exploring the issue on behalf of their constituents. There are few public records that can preserve community concerns for the future without being altered by those who come later. Parliamentary debate and the Hansard provide one such record. If speaking limits are imposed on the Tasmanian Legislative Council, the record will be diminished and our open democracy will be blighted.

In closing, I ask members to preserve the discretion this Council has traditionally given us as members in the use of debate time. Where there is no abuse of process, and there is none in this place, that discretion supports democratic procedure, proper representation and the integrity of this institution. A prescribed speaking limit would change what is expected of both current and future members, and it would change this House for the worse. The idiom 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' or 'don't mess with a good thing.' We would move from a system that fosters and encourages debate to one that limits it by its intent. And for what? This House does not routinely sit through unnecessarily lengthy debates, and its members do not abuse the process, damage parliamentary outcomes or frustrate the intentions of lawmakers. In fact, members do the opposite. They work together to prioritise business and use the Council's time in the most effective way possible.

In the 17 years I have been in this place, I probably have had two or three, maybe four, speeches that have gone over the 60 minutes. I could be wrong there, but the stadium, the same-sex marriage and obviously the end-of-life choice Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021. For that one, I'll elaborate a little bit. I think we had between 10 and 16 hours of briefings for that bill. If I was limited to one hour to be able to present that bill at the beginning and the end, it would be nonsense. It would not have occurred. The same-sex-marriage debate was huge in this place, and I was shocked that I actually went over the hour. I did 100 minutes on that and I didn't think that was possible, but that was such an important issue. The stadium: we went for a long time, and as the Premier has said that debate strengthened the outcome, not that it was the outcome I would have preferred, but it strengthened the outcome and strengthened and added to the debate.

There are times where my opinion will change regarding the bill or amendment because of the feedback and the debate in this place, and that's how it should be. Sometimes when I come into this place, I'm sitting on the fence, I'm not quite certain and the debate in this place is taken up by those people who are passionate about that cause, and that's really important. We must be able to change our mind on the evidence that's presented. Most of my speeches are under 20 minutes. You know, I'm not that good on my feet here, and so I limit the time that I do speak. But when I want to speak for an hour, or an hour-and-a-half, I don't want to have somebody sitting at the desk there going 'ding' 'Time's up, 30 seconds to go'. I then don't want to have to have a debate about whether I should be able to continue in the flow of my speech. That's nonsense.

Ms Webb - You won't even get a chance to debate it.

Mr GAFFNEY - Exactly. We will not save time by constraining debate. The real obstacle to parliamentary efficiency is not members speaking their minds, it is poor government practice. Strong, well-considered and well-drafted proposals generally pass through parliament with little delay. Proposals that are questionable, complex or far-reaching naturally warrant closer examination.

I respectfully ask newer members to perhaps listen to the experienced voices in this place who have been here for a number of years. I would encourage newer members or parliament who may be sitting on the fence on this notice of motion not to abandon a highly regarded review process which benefits Tasmania and is integral to an important legislative process. That is our role. That is how we restore and maintain public trust in the political process. We are making laws; we're not sitting at a council table making agenda items. We are making laws in this place.

Representations by elected members of the House of review should not be constrained by an arbitrary timeframe. If we are constrained by what we want to do when we're putting laws into our books, into the Hansard, we are not doing the right thing by the people of Tasmania. Ours is a House of review, and I do not accept, and hopefully we will not have a time restraint in this place, because it will not serve the people of Tasmania, and it will not make for better legislation. In fact, it will make for weaker legislation.