Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Procedure Committee, I present the committee’s report entitled Learning from other parliaments: study program 2006, together with the minutes of proceedings and a supplementary CD.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

In April this year several members of the Procedure Committee participated in a study tour to a number of overseas parliaments. I thank the member for Charlton, who is in the chamber today, and the members for Chifley and Cowper for their enthusiastic participation, as well as the Chief Government Whip, the member for Macquarie, who joined us for part of the trip. I would also like to thank the Clerk for approving the participation of the secretary to the Procedure Committee, Ms Judy Middlebrook.

The group visited Westminster, London; the Scottish parliament, Edinburgh; the National Assembly for Wales, which is located in Cardiff; the Isle of Man, to visit the Tynwald; and, finally, Paris, to visit the National Assembly.

The title of this report, Learning from other parliaments, captures one of the main themes of the visit. We have a tendency, I think, to assume that our way of doing things is fine as it is—and, for the most part, it is. Our practices and procedures have worked well, but that does not mean our system is perfect. We can learn from the experience of other parliaments. In the time available today, I would like to focus on two issues that impressed me during the study tour: the petitioning process and making the parliament more interactive. These are two areas where I think we can be more innovative and enhance the way we operate.

As part of its 1999 report It’s your House, the Procedure Committee examined the petition process. One of the concerns the committee had at that time was improving follow-up action once a petition had been lodged. People sign petitions believing that they are an important way of informing the government and the parliament of their views on a particular issue, and they expect that some action will eventuate. While numerically large petitions may get some publicity because of their size, most petitions are recorded in Hansard and there is no obvious follow-up action or response from government. Has the petition had any influence? It is impossible to say with any certainty.

The Scottish parliament’s method of dealing with petitions appeared to us to be quite revolutionary. They have established a nine-member Public Petitions Committee that considers, firstly, whether the petition is admissible: is the subject or problem raised in the petition within the power of the Scottish parliament to address? If so, the committee then considers what action should be taken on the petition.

Petitioners may be asked to appear before the committee at a public hearing, other individuals or organisations may be invited to give their views on the petition, and the committee writes to the relevant minister asking him or her to respond to the issues raised. In the Scottish experience, ministers respond very positively to invitations to discuss matters raised in the petition.

We heard of a number of instances where the petitioning process in Scotland resulted in specific government action on the matters raised, and these are detailed in the report. While the Scottish model may not necessarily be an exact fit for the Australian system, there is much to commend the way it has reinvigorated this very traditional method of raising grievances.

The second issue I would like to touch on briefly is that of encouraging a more interactive chamber. We have all heard the criticisms about debate in this place, that it too often consists of members reading overly long speeches to an all but empty chamber and then leaving at the end of their contribution. During our visit to the House of Commons the group was very surprised to learn that any member wanting to participate in a debate is expected to be present during the whole debate. A premature departure would not be conducive to the member getting the call on a future occasion.

The length of speeches also has an impact on the extent to which debate is lively and interactive. The average length of a speech on legislation in Scotland, for example, is six minutes. In France speech times are allocated to a political group, which then allocates the time amongst its members. Members may have to share as little as 15 minutes. While I am not advocating either approach, I remind the House that the Procedure Committee in a previous report recommended that second reading speeches be reduced from 20 to 15 minutes, with the balance of the time available for questions and answers. Unfortunately, that recommendation was not accepted at the time.

I would like to conclude with a word of thanks to all members and staff of the parliaments we visited who were so generous with their time and expertise. I am sure that the benefits of the visit will continue to be reflected in the work of the Procedure Committee during the remainder of this parliamentary term and into the future. I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context