New South Wales

Jun 6, 2011

NSW filibuster for the tragics, but there’s bigger stuff at stake

This weekend the norms of NSW parliamentary procedure were put to the test with a total of more than 29 hours of debate and the first use of the “guillotine” rule to cut off debate since 1906, writes David Mallard, lecturer, political analyst and blogger.

A funny thing happened to NSW politics last Thursday. The day didn’t end until Saturday. The NSW Legislative Council was scheduled to conclude its two-week sitting period on Thursday, until the government moved to set aside private members’ business and continue debate on its industrial relations bill. And that’s when the norms of parliamentary procedure were put to the test. Greens MLC David Shoebridge delivered the longest continuous speech in Legislative Council history, speaking for almost six hours on Thursday evening. A total of more than 29 hours of debate, mostly from Labor and Greens MLCs opposing the bill. And then, on Saturday morning, the first use of the "guillotine" rule to cut off debate since 1906. Filibusters are rare in contemporary politics. In the United States, the term is now used to refer to a procedural roadblock in the Senate, by which a minority of 41 of the 100 Senators can prevent legislation being put to a vote. Most Australian parliaments impose time limits on debate, but the NSW upper house is an exception. The lack of historical examples left political tragics to reminisce on The West Wing’s "Stackhouse Filibuster" and wonder whether an MP would resort to reading recipes to prolong the debate. But why was there a filibuster at all? With the O’Farrell government having locked in support from the Shooters and Fishers Party and Fred Nile’s Christian Democrats, the bill’s passage was assured. Instead, the goal appears to have been delay to bring public attention to the bill. Opponents of the bill highlight that the government did not take these policies to the election. The bill requires the Industrial Relations Commission to follow government policy directions when considering public sector industrial disputes. This allows the government to cap public sector salary rises at 2.5% unless further increases are offset by "employee-related savings". The filibuster presumably aimed to bring public opposition, driven by public sector protests, to bear on the government and supporting crossbenchers. In provoking public reaction, the filibuster seems effective. On social media, the events got a Twitter hashtag (via @hawleyrose) that set the theme of opposition: #NSWisconsin, a reference to the recent civil unrest in that American state over laws that stripped public sector bargaining rights. Public demonstrations were quickly organised. Fire engines and buses blocked lanes in Macquarie Street by Thursday. In Bathurst, 60 public sector employees rallied outside Paul Toole’s office. A crowd rallied outside Parliament House on Saturday as the government gagged the debate inside, and unions are planning further action. The government has defended its guillotine as a necessary response to "juvenile" abuse of parliamentary rules, but I disagree. The speakers weren’t reading Dickens or cookbooks. They didn’t load up the bill with hundreds of trivial amendments and insist on exhaustively debating each one. They spoke cogently about their reasons for opposing the legislation. There was the occasional detour via objections on points of order -- whether for a bizarre excursion into the origin of the word "draconian" (which, it turns out, has nothing to do with dragons) or simply to give someone a rest during a marathon speech. But their focus was on articulating why the bill should be rejected, or at least considered more carefully before passing. But the end result is that three days worth of arguments against the legislation went into Hansard, while barely a word was uttered by the government. And then they cut the debate off. To borrow a line from a different episode of that TV show, these events were "a profound statement about democracy" -- and one with strong implications for the coming term of NSW politics.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

26 thoughts on “NSW filibuster for the tragics, but there’s bigger stuff at stake

  1. CarlitosM

    Again, for the senile and or slow: “a massive call for emergency protests”,
    ie: as in the “call” for action (emergency protests) –through channels you probably are not very aware of– is “massive”.

    Or like the kids may say “fricken huuuge!”

    And no one is trying to convince you. Nor the MLCs.
    The law is almost guaranteed to pass, so the next steps are for a sustained ongoing community campaign.

    Finally, MESKI:
    They act just like the UK Tories, they abuse power just like those, have airs of privilege and entitlement just like the UK Tories, and are extreme ideologues just like the UK Tories.

    Hence, a number of slang terms come to mind to refer to such extreme right-wingers, among which the least offensive is calling them Tories. Same goes for their accomplices: the “Guns and Mosses” alliance.
    Now, if only they moved into this 21st century, instead of acting like we are in the 50s… the 1850s!

  2. Peter Ormonde


    Senile and slow you reckon…

    Had a look around for evidence of the “massive call” … aside from the usual Trots organising barricade building theory 101 classes I couldn’t find a thing … where might a senile old thing like myself find some evidence of the massiveness of this call? Hasn’t quite managed to be massive enough to get out of the inner west of Sydney yet I suspect. Certainly not out to the bush where I live.

    Slow, senile but not delusional yet comrade.

    How to win friends and influence people.

  3. CarlitosM

    Again: It was for the “senile and or slow”.
    You answered: “Senile and slow you reckon…”
    So you tick both hey? ;D

  4. Peter Ormonde

    Most humorous.
    Where can I find out about your “massive call” to protest?
    All I have found so far has been some Trot blogger calling (massively, no doubt) to bring Tahrir Square to Maquarie Street… rearranging history, now geogaphy apparently…. look forward to the new maths. Public servants … vanguard of the proletariat.
    A las barricadas!!!

  5. CarlitosM

    Again, I’ll repeat: “through channels you probably are not very aware of ”
    Not quite with it today, eh? 

    Please share with us specifically just how did you carry out such unproductive search?
    I’ll be sure to mention it to your union… Yeah, didn’t think so.

    You know, at this rate you’ll be in real trouble when you need any services the NSW Government is about to start privatising: hospitals, community care, patient transport, ambos, etc. 
    And they have already started with the Ferries, and the Electricity sector likely to be next.

  6. Peter Ormonde

    Carlito, I did what you suggested … ” Or just do a search on #NSWisconsin.”

    Zip… nada…. nothing only the delusions of some silly armchair revolutionary…
    No massive calls I could find, not even a newspaper ad or article advertising same …
    Help out a “senile and or slow” old comrade … and send me a link or two to this “massive call”. I am obviously not aware of these channels where I can track it all down. Does one have to be initiated, secret handshakes…. how do I find out?

    Looking forward to the revolution … Wednesday is it?

    No wonder O’Farrell will get away with this shameful move … what an advocate the workers have in you Carliton and in the NSW Upper House. God help ‘us all.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details