Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I am certainly pleased to respond to this matter of public importance, although I note that at a time when the global economic crisis is still having an impact on Australia and on a day when we have introduced the CPRS legislation and had a debate about the future of telecommunications and broadband, the opposition are reduced to moving MPIs about the processes in this parliament. Nothing could typify more the fact that they are all about an inward focus—about themselves—rather than about what interests the community out there.

Indeed, the Manager of Opposition Business has a very short memory. Let us have a look at the issues that he raises. The first thing is that he says that parliamentary question time is partisan. Well, you would think that! During the 12 years in which I sat on the other side of the chamber I recall ministers who sat on this side of the chamber accusing us of being un-Australian, accusing us of not supporting our troops in Iraq and accusing us of supporting terrorists coming to this country—accusing us of the worst imaginable things that they could think of, day after day, as they stood up in this chamber.

What do they propose? The first issue that the member for Sturt has raised is question time reform and time limits. To back that up, one of the arguments that he used was the relative amounts of time spent on questions from government members and questions from opposition members. In fact, if the member for Sturt had done his homework he would have found that this side of the House—the current government—actually spends more time on opposition questions as a percentage than the former government did. The former government spent 28 per cent of its time on opposition questions. Indeed, time after time their strategy was to stand up and give one-word answers to questions from the opposition. So it simply does not stack up.

Indeed, a prominent parliamentarian said this about time limits.

… to accommodate all of the challenges that the new membership of this place brings, it is much better to have a flexible and cooperative approach to allowing members to speak rather than having a prescriptive and restrictive set of rules which inhibit the capacity of the house … to act responsibly and maturely in managing its own affairs.

The person who said that was Philip Davis, the Liberal Party leader in the Legislative Council in Victoria. When the non-government members got the numbers for a majority in the Legislative Council in Victoria over the last couple of years they actually abolished time limits. Time limits were there but they abolished them. They say one thing but when they have an opportunity they do the precise opposite.

They also put forward a number of other reforms to the Standing Committee on Procedure but they do not take any responsibility for their own actions. Today, we have seen yet another suspension of standing orders during question time, to have a motion without any momentum whatsoever, without any focus, just ‘It’s Thursday, we’ll move a suspension’. That is what happens every Thursday in this place. It is so predictable and it occurs constantly.

One of the issues raised by the Manager of Opposition Business is ministerial statements. That is a reform that has been taken seriously by this government because we believe it is appropriate that ministers be accountable in this place and that we make announcements in the House of Representatives. We have had 100 ministerial statements during this term and nine prime ministerial statements on major issues such as defence and the major updates that will occur every year about closing the gap with Indigenous Australians. The making of these major statements in this chamber is all about treating the parliament with respect. Of course there is equal time for shadow ministers to respond. This is an important part of the parliament, in which both sides get to put their views, and it is a reform that has been adopted. But those opposite—having argued that it should happen—are now arguing against it.

We have also changed the way in which this parliament works by raising its respect. The most important thing we have done is to acknowledge, for the first time in our history, that this is Aboriginal land. For the first time in our history we have had a Welcome to Country—something that I think all members of the House of Representatives now support and all members participate in. One of the issues being considered by the Procedure Committee is how we can enhance the opening of parliament so that we acknowledge the fact that history did not begin on this land when Federation occurred; that we have a history that goes back tens of thousands of years. That is a vital and important reform advanced by this government—belatedly, but it has happened.

We have established the Petitions Committee to ensure that millions of Australians now get their voices heard. Previously, petitions were tabled and they went downstairs, somewhere, never to be seen again. No minister responded to what constituents were saying out there. We have enhanced the process. Between 2004 and 2007 more than one million people signed over 900 petitions but there was no response whatsoever. It is an important reform.

We have acknowledged the fact that the parliament is changing. We are not where we should be yet but we do have increased representation of women, particularly younger women. Proxy votes for nursing mothers is an important reform that both sides of the chamber have supported, acknowledging that we can move forward as a modern day institution.

All of these issues have been important, but perhaps the most extraordinary statement by the Manager of Opposition Business is the purported concern for increasing the backbencher role in this parliament. We advanced the most important reform that could have happened, and that was the Friday sittings. The Friday sittings gave an opportunity for backbench members to discuss issues of concern to their constituents and issues of concern to the nation. Private members’ bills have been used more by opposition members than by government members. There were many people—government members of long standing who had experience in governments past and present—who thought that we were providing an opportunity to the opposition that was extremely generous.

See this speech in context