Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the recommendations that are contained in the report that has been put together by the Procedure Committee. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the committee members—not only the Chief Opposition Whip, the member for Chifley, who is a member, but also the member for McPherson, who was here earlier, and other members of the committee. The member for Cowper has now arrived; I know he is a member of the Procedure Committee. Those members have put together a set of practical recommendations about the way in which we can improve the parliament.

I think it is fair to say that this report has come off the back of recommendations made by a former Speaker. Unfortunately, as the Chief Opposition Whip has indicated, those recommendations were not acceded to by the government, and that may well have been because the Chief Government Whip at the time did not want to see changes to the chamber. But I think it is now time for the government to seriously consider further changes in the way in which we do business in this place, particularly in light of the way in which the changes that have occurred in the Main Committee have led to a better and more interactive process.

In fact, I think that was clearly exemplified today when the Chief Opposition Whip asked a question of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. The minister acceded to that request and went on to answer the question. That was then followed by the shadow minister returning to the Main Committee and asking questions of the minister, who was summing up the legislation. In that short period, to be quite frank, we heard more and realised more about the legislation than we ordinarily would do when all we have to compare are the contributions from each side on a particular bill. That example today underlines the improvements that could be made if the government were to provide the opportunity for members to intervene on speakers in the chamber after 15 minutes of a 20-minute contribution to their speech in the second reading debate.

It is not a radical proposition that is being put by the committee, I hasten to add. Effectively, the committee is saying—and I agree with the conclusions of the committee—that a speaker will first have 15 minutes to articulate their particular view, outlining their opposition to or support for a bill or amendments. Only after that 15 minutes would another member be able to seek the call to intervene and ask a question of that speaker. I think that is quite a decent balance: it ensures that a member is not able to upset a speaker’s contribution for the first 15 minutes but that three-quarters of the way through the allotted time they are able to rise and ask a question of a speaker, and I think it is fair to say that that would add to the debate.

Of course, a speaker can deny the call—that is, refuse to answer the question. Indeed, the recommendation would even allow for a speaker who feels he or she needs the full 20 minutes to say from the outset of the debate that they do not wish to take an intervention. So this is not a radical proposition. The committee recommends that this proposition be trialled for six months, after which time a review would occur to see whether there had been improvements in the way in which we debate matters.

Since the introduction of interventions being allowed in the Main Committee in 2002, there have been improvements in the way in which the Main Committee operates. I cannot see any reason why there would not be further improvements to the chamber. Again, there are qualifications to the intervention, which I would also like to acknowledge. A member would not be able to intervene on a minister who is introducing a bill, which is in consideration of the need for government to outline in detail their reasons for the introduction of a bill. Therefore, a minister or a member acting on behalf of a minister, such as a parliamentary secretary, would not be called upon to answer questions in the introduction of a bill; indeed, a member would not have the opportunity to intervene upon a shadow minister who was speaking subsequent to the minister. But there would be an opportunity for members to intervene on a minister in the summing up of the legislation, which occurred here today. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs was asked questions in his summing up. I think that led to disclosures that the parliament and the public would like to see, and that underlines the improvements to the operation of the chamber.

I know that there were some other considerations. Firstly, I apologise to the committee: I know the committee had asked members to submit views on this particular matter. It is noted that members did not submit propositions on this particular matter, and I think that was unfortunate. I hope the committee or indeed the government do not take the failure of members to respond to this particular matter as an indication that we do not concern ourselves with improving the chamber. I know from speaking to other members that there is solid ground-level support for changes to the system that will improve interaction. Whilst I did not make a submission, having been asked to do so by the chair of the committee by way of letter last year, I thought it only fitting that I rise today to lend my support to the recommendations that have been made. I do not think they are radical propositions. They are subject to review and there is a trial period in place. I would ask the government to seriously consider the proposition because I think it will lead to improvements.

I also understand that the committee considered other propositions, including the reduction in speech time limits. With respect to the reduction of speech time limits, I understand that they compared and contrasted the way in which other chambers around the world operate and it is fair to say that 20 minutes is a significant amount of time allotted for a second reading speech. As I understand it, there are some chambers that have far more limited time available and I think people would quite often say that, in listening to contributions by members, it is not always the case that you need 20 minutes to say what needs to be said; in fact, sometimes 20 minutes only seems to weaken the argument of a particular member. I am sure I am also an offender on occasion; we tend to repeat things that we have said already in the contribution.

I think it is possible to concede that members in this place sometimes debate and repeat matters that need no repetition. That does occur and that may not occur if there were shorter time limits. It is also fair to say that when Abraham Lincoln addressed people as the President on 19 November 1863 at Gettysburg, he only took three minutes and less than 300 words to say what he had to say. Maybe we can learn something from—

See this speech in context