Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee’s report entitled Maintenance of the standing and sessional orders: first report, subtitled ‘Debate on the election of Speaker; presentation of explanatory memorandums’, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the first report of the committee’s inquiry into the maintenance of the standing and sessional orders, subtitled ‘Debate on the election of Speaker; presentation of explanatory memorandums’. This is the first report of a wide-ranging ongoing inquiry under which the committee will report from time to time on specific matters. The inquiry will encompass all sessional orders which the House has adopted for a trial period and also proposals for minor adjustments to the standing orders which arise from time to time. Any more substantial matter will be subject to separate inquiry and report. Over the course of each parliament, the Procedure Committee’s attention is drawn to various, often relatively minor, procedural issues arising from proceedings in the House. This ongoing inquiry provides a formal mechanism for us to consider these issues.

The report being presented today addresses two matters: debate on the election of Speaker and presentation of explanatory memorandums. Both arose from events in the House which caused the Procedure Committee to reflect on the related standing orders. In relation to the first topic, we recommend that standing order 11 be amended to permit movers and seconders to speak in support of their nominated candidate for Speaker in all cases, even when there is only one nominee. Currently, if there is only one nominee for Speaker there is no debate permitted by the standing orders, not even an introductory statement by the member nominating the candidate.

When Mr Speaker was elected at the start of this parliament, the mover and seconder of the motion nominating him did indeed speak in his support. However, this was strictly outside the provisions of the standing order, and the clerk––who, of course, chairs the meeting until there is a Speaker––had the uncomfortable duty of intervening to point this out. While the committee commends the clerk for attempting to apply the standing order, we see no necessity for the restriction in the standing order. The reason for the restriction is presumably that the time of the House does not need to be taken up with debate if no decision is to be made.

However, the committee sees no harm and some benefit in the mover and seconder introducing their candidate to the House. Most elections for Speaker take place at the start of a parliament, when newly elected members are likely not to be familiar with the member being nominated. This also applies to visitors in the galleries and to members of the television or radio audience. A short opportunity for proposers to introduce their candidate would also suit the ceremonial aspect of proceedings at the opening of a parliament. If no-one speaks in support, the election is over in the blink of an eye.

In relation to the second topic covered in this report, the committee recommends that standing orders 141 and 142 be amended to provide that the explanatory memorandum to a bill be presented when the bill is presented, rather than—as occurs now—at the conclusion of the minister’s second reading speech. Ever since explanatory memorandums have been produced, it seems to have been the standard practice for them to be released to members and to the public at the same time as the bill is released—that is, when the bill is presented. However, bills and committee reports are held under embargo until presented to the House. By analogy it could be argued that an EM should be kept under embargo until it, the EM, is itself presented. The committee thinks that such an analogy would probably be mistaken. However, it is highly desirable to remove any cause for uncertainty and this is the purpose of our recommendation—to align the standing orders with a sound and longstanding administrative practice.

Later in the year, as part of this ongoing inquiry, the Procedure Committee will report on its review of the operation of the sessional orders that the House adopted on 9 February. These cover arrangements for debates of committee and delegation reports in the Main Committee, as recommended by our report on this matter in November; the duration of members’ statements in the Main Committee; debate times for dissent motions; and provisions relating to the maintenance of order in the Main Committee. We have written to all members to alert them to this inquiry and will write again later in the year seeking input on these sessional orders before the Procedure Committee finalises its views. We encourage all members to give us their views on the operation of these sessional orders to assist us in our assessment of them. I commend the report to the House. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context