Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome not only the opportunity that is given by the discussion of this first report of the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into the maintenance of the standing and sessional orders to discuss the recommendations of that first report with regard to the debate on the election of Speaker and the presentation of explanatory memorandums but also the opportunity to review the work of the Procedure Committee. It is something of an indictment of the way members of the House show little interest in the work of the Procedure Committee that I am the only person outside of the committee to enter into this debate. I have to admit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in part I was dragooned into this debate—but that is the way of the Chief Opposition Whip, perhaps encouraging me to set my mind to this task.

Much of what has been said in the discussion of this report is, I think, very important. The Procedure Committee, especially in this parliament and the last parliament, has well and truly set out to modernise the way in which we look at our work here in the parliament. Think of how the standing orders are now presented and then think how they were presented only a couple of parliaments ago, before the plain English standing orders came in. What a mystery just the words were, let alone the practices. We have tackled some of the problems in relation to these two aspects, the debate on the election of Speaker and the presentation of explanatory memorandums, and we have ensured the importance of the issue of executive governments putting a proposition after the committee has reported to the parliament to then be voted on.

I want to briefly talk about these two items and then perhaps talk at greater length about the work of the committee. One of the things we see is that sometimes, whether unwittingly or deliberately, members can seek change. The change to standing order 11 needs to be called the McArthur amendment. The fact is that the committee has fitted the honourable member for Corangamite by showing that in 2002 he was aware of what the standing orders allowed and then in 2004 he pushed the envelope a little bit, which suggests Fergus actually knew what he was doing.

The main thing is that the parliament, through the Procedure Committee, has picked it up. I think that this is a much more satisfactory arrangement. When you compare the election in 2002 to the election in 2004, for all the reasons that have been mentioned, it is obvious that the mover and seconder should get a chance to speak, even where there is not to be a contest. However, those who are proposing this course of action in the future, where they think they are going to be unopposed, should pick their movers and seconders wisely. I am sorry that the honourable member for Chifley has left the chamber, but he will know what I am alluding to there.

The bit about explanatory memorandums also makes a lot of sense. People think that a government should give some of the reasons behind a bill at the time that it is first presented. It is, in a way, an anachronism to have it tabled at the end of the second reading speech, which is partly into the second part of the proceedings of the parliament in considering legislation. For all the reasons that the chair of the committee gave in this debate today—and one particular instance was highlighted—I think that it goes not only to solving those problems but to providing a much better and clearer way for people who are observing and for the practitioners, as members of parliament, to look at legislation.

Let us review some of the ideas. As the election of the Speaker is one of the main things we see on the opening day of parliament, I was surprised that the honourable member for Chifley reminded us that it was over three parliaments ago that a previous Procedure Committee reported on new ideas for the opening of parliament. That is one area where there is an interface with the public and where we could change the way in which we present ourselves. As members of the House of Representatives, we traipse over to the other place to listen to the Governor-General’s address on behalf of the government. In the opening of parliament report it was suggested that the Great Hall be used as neutral ground. There was discussion of an Indigenous component to the opening day. I think that these things would make for a proceeding that reflects much more a modern Australia. If we are going to modernise and strengthen the standing orders, that is one way that we can grab that banner, to show people that this parliament is serious about those matters.

I reflect on when we went down to Melbourne to celebrate the centenary of the opening of parliament. The opening of parliament took place in the Exhibition Building, then the two houses went off to start their business in the chambers of the Victorian parliament. We mirrored that in the way that we conducted ourselves on the centenary of parliament. We met in the Exhibition Building and then we went the next day to our chambers. Even over 100 years ago, the founding fathers of Federation had an idea about the way in which they would do things.

Mention has been made of the Procedure Committee’s recent study tour. A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit the Palace of Westminster and also the National Assembly for Wales, which was a greenfield site. I think that we as parliamentary practitioners need to look at both those systems. One is the parent of all Westminster parliaments. It plays a very definite role in ensuring that it is open to change. It has a modernisation committee that not only goes to the procedures of the parliament but looks at the way in which other things are done. The Welsh Assembly is exciting because, as I said, it is a greenfield site. It is open for people to think of different ways of doing things. At the time I visited, the officers were very excited by the way in which technology could be used. I hope that that was embraced by the members, but I am not too sure. We will listen very intently to the report of the Procedure Committee about that study tour.

The other matter I wish to go to is that in strengthening the role and the opportunities for private members the Procedure Committee is clearly indicating that they understand that, in the modern interpretation of the Westminster system that we see in place in Australia, it is very important for private members to see that they have a role outside the party disciplines. That is something that I have talked about often in this place. As a person who was a backbencher in a government I know how difficult it is to decide how far you go within the party disciplines to put the executive on notice through the parliamentary processes, or whether you only use the party processes.

I thought it was quite exciting last year to see the changed way that—despite the present government having the numbers in both chambers—within the parties that make up the coalition, private members were pushing the envelope to put the executive government on notice. As has been said, much of the work done by parliamentary committees is usually done on a unanimous basis, by consensus and by cutting back on things to try to get an agreement. But it is important that private members push through the ideas, whether they be the subjects mentioned by the honourable member for Charlton or other subjects.

I look at some of the parliamentary committees that I have been on—the sustainable cities committee inquiry that reported early in this parliament and the committee that reported into Indigenous health. There is a lot of discussion through the sustainable cities inquiry outside the parliament—the community seems to have embraced it. With the Indigenous health inquiry, we asked that parliament keep that debate up. Regrettably, it lapsed and now we find that we are having a debate that I think will be polarised because party positions will be taken, whereas we could have moved forward from that committee report and continued the dialogue and discussion without that partisan debate. That would have been important.

I think the Procedure Committee is to be congratulated on continuing a developing tradition of protecting the rights of private members, suggesting to government that there is a way of ensuring that government business can go forward at the same time as giving private members additional opportunities. I look forward to further discussion of the maintenance of the standing and sessional orders inquiry that the Procedure Committee has in place. I congratulate the committee on this first report and its ongoing work.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.

See this speech in context