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

I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure report, Learning from other parliaments: study program 2006. While I was not able to participate in this study tour of parliaments in the United Kingdom and France, I am speaking to the report because as deputy chair of the committee I have a keen interest in some of the issues that arose during the trip.

Committee members visited the House of Commons and the House of Lords in London; the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh; the Tynwald in Douglas, on the Isle of Man; the National Assembly for Wales in Cardiff; and the French National Assembly in Paris. The committee observed some significant differences between the way proceedings are conducted in the chambers of these parliaments and the way we conduct proceedings in our own chamber. Some major themes on which the committee reported were: encouraging an interactive debating chamber; formal votes; programming business; electing a Speaker; question time; and opportunities for private members.

It is interesting to note the high level of interaction involved with debates in other chambers. Members are expected to be present in the chamber for much longer than is the case in the House of Representatives. For example, in the House of Commons, any member wishing to participate in a debate is expected to be present at the beginning of the debate and, after speaking, members usually remain in the chamber for at least the following member’s speech. The Speaker is unlikely to allocate the call to a member who has not been listening to the debate in the chamber. There is a convention in the Scottish parliament that a member wishing to speak should be in the chamber for the whole debate—but, more strictly, they are expected to be present for at least the preceding and following speakers.

The House of Commons and the Scottish parliament also allow interventions, similar to the practice in our Main Committee chamber. The practice is common in the Scottish parliament, where one member estimated that about half the speeches in the chamber have an intervention. In this context, I note the Procedure Committee has, in a previous report, recommended a mechanism to support more interactive debating in the chamber. It is proposed that second reading speeches be cut from 20 minutes to 15 minutes, with an optional five-minute question and answer period at the end. While this recommendation has not yet been adopted, I believe it has fairly broad support from both sides of the parliament.

Another aspect of particular interest to me was hearing about the way in which other parliaments similar to our own conduct question time. Members on the study tour observed the equivalent of question time in the House of Commons, the Scottish parliament and the French National Assembly and noted that they were not marked by the level of political disputation that is common during question time in the Australian House of Representatives. There are some interesting aspects of the process in the House of Commons that may be relevant to this. While it is not something that I would personally support, points of order are not generally allowed during question time but are heard at the end, and there is no process for dissenting from the Speaker’s ruling. Also, the rules relating to questions and, perhaps more significantly, answers in the House of Commons are more detailed than those of the House of Representatives. These rules are set out in their parliamentary practice rather than the standing orders.

Another factor which may result in a more orderly and useful question time is that some parliaments have time limits on questions and answers. For example, in Wales, the time limit for a question and answer is three minutes in total. Similarly, in France, the time limit for a question and answer is five minutes. Under rules such as these, it is obvious that if a member’s question was too long it would not leave much time for an adequate answer. Therefore, questions would become more direct and concise, which may lead to answers also becoming more direct and concise. As the committee reported, time limits would certainly not permit a leisurely canvassing of alternative policies.

I would also like to briefly comment on opportunities for private members. This is one area in which the committee believes that the House of Representatives performs particularly well in comparison with other parliaments. Our members seem to have more opportunities to speak on matters of personal interest and the interests of their electorates than members in comparable national parliaments. The committee also noted that the House of Commons acknowledges the model of our Main Committee in its development of Westminster Hall, an innovation which has significantly improved the opportunities for their private members.

I believe that a number of issues arising from this study tour of other parliaments would be worth while investigating, to see if any improvements can be made to the way in which we conduct proceedings in our own chamber. Following the study tour, the Standing Committee on Procedure has initiated two inquiries—one into the petitioning process and another into encouraging an interactive chamber. I would encourage all members to consider providing input into these inquiries.

I commend the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure who went on this study tour. They used money from their allowance for study tours to come up with this report. I think the parliament has a bit to learn from other similar parliaments. We should not be so staid that we do not allow change. I was on the Procedure Committee at the time that it recommended the operation of this second chamber, and I think the development of this second chamber has improved the workings of the parliament. I do not mean to diminish the debate in the other chamber, but it has allowed extra opportunities for private members’ business to take place.

I commend the report to the House. I think it is a worthwhile report. We do not need to adopt everything that other parliaments do, because we have our own unique way of doing things in this, our Australian parliament. It is a little bit different. I cannot imagine question time not being robust. I would like it to be more informative. I believe that in the 16 years I have been in this place question time has diminished, and it is the main focus of people’s attention in terms of this parliament and observation of it. This government came to power on the basis that they were going to raise the standards; the reverse has happened in relation to the operation of question time. That is not to say that the opposition should not conduct itself somewhat differently in question time.

I believe that as a parliament we can no longer obtain information from the executive and hold them to account. That has been left to Senate estimates committees. With both chambers now having a government majority, one questions how effective an estimates committee will be. It is incumbent on us as private members and on members of the Procedure Committee to raise these issues. It is not about political advantage, as one day the opposition will be in government and the government will be in opposition. It is about bringing forward reasonable and fair rules that enhance this parliament. My colleagues who took the time to go away together and study these other parliaments have produced a beneficial report on which this parliament can draw. I commend them and I commend the report to the house.

See this speech in context