Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I start by saying that I do not speak on behalf of all the crossbenchers. There has been a wide range of views expressed over the past 24 hours in these negotiations. From my point of view, as someone who participated quite actively in the parliamentary reform process at the start of the 43rd Parliament, I welcome this trial and appreciate the ongoing focus and the ongoing bipartisan work in trying to reach for best practice in parliamentary standards and cultural improvement. There may be a way to go for all 150 members of parliament and for us as a collective but I welcome the major parties, along with you, Mr Speaker, the new Speaker, the Procedure Committee and others continuing to reflect and to reach consensus where possible on how to improve standards in this chamber.

In regard to the specific issues I think there are no problems at all in changing the name of the Main Committee to the Federation Chamber. Hopefully that does give it more symbolic status so that speeches made in that chamber by members, private members in particular, have a better chance of being heard by their constituents and of being heard in the public policy debate.

The issues around question time become more interesting. I have been an advocate for some time of a submission made by the late Independent Peter Andren with regard to trying to make question time more spontaneous. Before he passed away, his recommendation was to limit each question to 30 seconds and each answer to two minutes. At the start of this parliament that was negotiated to 45 seconds and four minutes. I am pleased to see, after some reflection on the first year of some changes in that area, that we now are getting closer to the model of the late Peter Andren, with the limits set at 30 seconds and two minutes. Hopefully the length of answers given by ministers is open to further consideration.

Ultimately, though, the test of question time comes down to a couple of things. For all the policy, personality and political debates that make question time the hour that is watched by so many and that is so colourful, ultimately its test of worth is whether it is a test of the policy agenda of the executive and the government of the day. It is worthless if it is not. I urge you, Mr Speaker, to have a firm hand and to make sure, through all that colour and noise, the personalities and the politics, that ultimately the worth of question time is upheld. That is the test of the policy agenda of the day. I hope that firm hand from the chair allows that to ultimately happen.

The issue of supplementary questions is an interesting one and, whilst it is not one that requires changes to the standing orders, it can happen from the chair. It is one to watch. I would hope some of the conversations had with regard to the crossbenchers' position on that, wanting to be able to add a supplementary to questions where needed and if required, regardless of quotas, will be viewed favourably by you, Mr Speaker. I think we enter difficult territory if supplementaries do become quota based: the government get two, the opposition get two and the crossbenchers have to haggle for whatever. If the role of a supplementary question is to make question time spontaneous, keep people thinking on their feet and keep the executive on their toes then I think there is a role less for quotas and more for substance in the follow-up to questions asked.

The other issue that I did want to raise, which is alongside these reforms being introduced today, is a matter raised by my colleague from Western Australia Mal Washer, who is well regarded by all. He has in the past year raised the issue of the sitting hours and some of the changes in the roster. I would hope, in this mood of consensus and reflection on some of the changes that happened 18 months ago, that there is some consideration given to delaying divisions and votes on a Monday until a later time, say, five o'clock, so that members who have to travel a long way and members who do have families can make arrangements to travel on a Monday morning rather than on a Sunday. I think that would assist many members in this chamber. It would not change the ability to call for particular votes or to deal with private members' business or other issues on a Monday. I think it will pick up on some of the issues that have been raised by Mal Washer and others about the health of members of parliament and the work-life balance considerations.

In conclusion, I welcome the trial. I wish it well. On reflection, I think the majority of reforms reached in a bipartisan way 18 months ago are holding up and bedding down. I hope that is starting to make some of those changes sustainable for the long term. I think one to watch this year is the relationship between ministers and committees. I hope all committee chairs and committees generally do act fearlessly in making sure that committees keep ministers and the executive officers honest. On several fronts, we are now approaching a six-month wait for ministers to respond to several recommendations that have come from committees. This is the test of whether the committee structure has strength or not. I hope in 2012 that it does. I hope the committee chairs generally do fulfil their part of the reform process and make sure they keep the ministers and the executive as honest as possible.

The only complaint I have heard this year is that we are busier than ever as MPs. I think that is a compliment to the reforms and it is what the Australian community expects. If that is the only complaint, we are doing our job.

See this speech in context