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

The preceding speaker did take just over two hours, as the Chief Opposition Whip reminds me. Nobody really remembers who the preceding speaker was and nor do they remember what he said. I think that might underline the fact that there are occasions when you do not always need the full 20 minutes. As I understand it, the committee has not chosen to recommend a time reduction.

By involving other members in the last five minutes of a contribution to the debate, this will increase the likelihood of a member being prepared to properly analyse the bill. If a member is speaking on a particular matter and they are wary of the fact that a member may wish to ask them a question on the bill, and particularly in relation to the contribution they are making, they might be a little more careful to read the bill, the Digest and other matters that are relevant to the bill before getting up and saying something. That is likely to be the case if there is an intervention and a question is asked about what they believe and contend in relation to the bill.

That capacity to intervene after 15 minutes would lead to higher quality contributions by members. I am not suggesting that it would always take shape in that regard. I am sure there are members who on occasion will rise to speak and who will not have too much concern about questions that might be asked. Indeed, members may decline a question that is being put to them after the 15-minute period. But it is interesting to note that two-thirds of the questions that have been put to members in the Main Committee since 2002 have been acceded to by the member. Indeed, in the Scottish parliament, which is referred to in the report, equally, approximately two-thirds of members took the question that was put to them and attempted to answer it.

I think the recommendations that have been made should be supported by the government. It is time for the main chamber, the place where the important matters of parliamentary business are undertaken, to have a more interactive dimension and allow for members to interact with the member who is speaking. I think that will encourage the likelihood of more members being present in the chamber during the debate on a particular bill. It is more likely for you to want to be in the chamber to listen to a particular contribution if you feel you have the capacity to respond to assertions made by the member who is on his or her feet. It seems to me that that will be a logical conclusion to altering the procedures of the parliament. So I do support the committee report. I hope that the government heeds and accedes to the recommendations so that we, as members of parliament, as representatives of the people of Australia, have an opportunity to properly engage in debate on the very important matters that come before us.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.

See this speech in context