Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the deputy chair of the Procedure Committee, the honourable member for Banks. He and I share an interest in parliamentary reform. Whilst as Australians we can all be proud of our parliamentary traditions, in Australia and, in particular in this parliament, there is what has been termed a democratic deficit. In other words, the power of the executive over the legislature has increased disproportionately. It is now time to start fighting back.

I was very pleased to be able to utilise my study leave to travel with the Procedure Committee and have a look at some of the other parliaments and how they operate. I was particularly pleased that the Chief Government Whip joined the committee in its travels and hope that, when the Procedure Committee brings down some reports, the whip, having seen other parliaments operating firsthand, will lend his considerable influence and prestige to ensure that some of the report’s recommendations are adopted by the government.

Members of the House of Representatives fundamentally have been elected to keep the government accountable, yet we do not have in this House, by comparison with other parliaments, a proper scrutiny of legislation. It is true, as my colleagues on this side of the House know, that as an opposition we try as best we can to examine and debate the government’s bills. More often than not we are gagged. We cannot say that there is proper committee scrutiny of all bills—and there should be. We are not doing our job on behalf of the people of Australia if we cannot fulfil our first and most fundamental role—that is, the scrutiny of government bills and holding the government accountable.

The lack of accountability in the Australian parliament is an absolute disgrace and we need to address it. I remind honourable members that, when the Howard government was elected to office, it was on the basis of raising parliamentary standards, yet its first act in the parliament was to cut $300,000 out of the parliamentary committees’ budget. The biggest cut to any department was applied to the parliamentary committees. When I was first elected as a member of parliament you could be guaranteed a few things: the head of a department would come and speak to a parliamentary inquiry about the department’s submission; a minister—a Labor minister—would often come along with the head of the department; and a parliamentary committee would have a secretary and research staff. These days you do not even get a nominated secretary. We are setting up to fail one of the best things in this parliament—the parliamentary committees. We are putting enormous stress on those who service the committees.

I would like to say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the big difference between the success or failure of a committee is in its membership. I would never say that the members of a committee have no role to play or no influence but, undoubtedly, the success of a committee goes to the way in which it is supported by way of staff, its research capacity and its ability to deliver a decent report rather than being stressed out by having to look at a number of inquiries and get out a number of committee reports. I fundamentally disagree that these changes have been in the best interests of parliament or parliamentary traditions. We need to start investing back into the parliament.

I say this: if we had proper parliamentary scrutiny of legislation, we would probably have less debating time. We would probably have less debating time because, without a doubt, a lot of the munching and crunching could occur through the parliamentary committee process. It does not happen and if it were to happen tomorrow we would not have the resources to fulfil it—and shame on the government of the day that is running it.

In other parliaments—in the Scottish parliament, in the Welsh parliament and even in Westminster—they actually have a body corporate. There are not only members of the government serving on it but also members of the opposition. In the case of the UK parliament a cabinet minister serves on it. There is never a conflict in the issue of resourcing or investing in democracy in the UK parliament—and certainly not in the Scottish parliament or the Welsh parliament—yet this parliament is being deprived of resources in the most vital areas.

The Procedure Committee has recommended a full-blown estimates procedure for the House of Representatives. That acknowledges, again, that our fundamental role as members of parliament, whether we are on the government side or on the opposition side, is to hold the executive to account. Whilst that has been totally rejected by the Howard government, even if we were to agree to do it tomorrow the committees would not have the resources to undertake it.

The other area I want to comment on is petitions. I have been a petitions sceptic because, under existing standing orders, any minister can put in a response to a petition. There has not been a response for 10 years. From time to time, perhaps inappropriately, I rise and ask the Speaker at the conclusion of the reading of petitions: ‘Have any responses to petitions been received?’ This government has a duck. Never once has it done it. Therefore, I have always been sceptical of establishing a petitions committee. But I commend to honourable members the Scottish parliament, which has a committee which looks at petitions and has the power to compel ministers to attend. In fact, ministers would not think of not attending if they were invited. It brings down reports to the parliament where appropriate. I am in favour of a petitions committee because it is an ancient and proper right.

You would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that for a long time I have had on the Notice Paper a proposition that says that if there have been concerned citizens in your electorate, my electorate or anyone else’s electorate who have collected a petition and are able to travel to Canberra then they should be able to present that petition at the bar of the parliament and read the prayer of the petition. That would be democracy in action. That would be empowering people.

That is one of the problems we have as a parliament—people feel that they cannot influence the parliament, they cannot talk to politicians and that politicians do not listen. We need to look at the way we conduct ourselves, whether it is as individual members, as a committee or as a parliament, so that we can redress that perception. It may be that some ministers believe that that perception out in the community is a good thing but I, for one, feel that most members of parliament want to address that. They care about this institution.

In conclusion, this is a preliminary report of the trip we have undertaken and the Procedure Committee will work its way through the issues that it saw in those parliaments, from the mother parliament, the most recent parliaments and the most ancient parliament—the Tynwald in the Isle of Man—as well as looking at the French system, which also had things to commend it. I ask that all honourable members participate and involve themselves in the work of the committee, as they have been invited to do, and hopefully we can bring down worthwhile recommendations which will correct a democratic deficit that operates here and reverse the disinvestment in democracy that has been the hallmark of the Howard government.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cameron Thompson) adjourned.

See this speech in context