Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will not delay the House greatly on this motion. I support it. I am pleased that there has been agreement in a very mature fashion about the length of time for questions and answers. I hope that that picks up the pace and sets the basis for a degree of spontaneity that is lacking at present.

I have been troubled by the House not coming to grips with the question of supplementary questions. It is ironic that there should have been for the whole time that I have been in this chamber a standing order on this while every member of the House has been running around trying to work out how to operate that standing order. I applaud your success, Mr Speaker, in getting a modicum of agreement so far. I think that you will use that agreement wisely to expand on the question of supplementaries.

But perhaps it is now time for us to look at other models. Clearly, when people talk about this being a parliament that has adapted the Westminster tradition, often the Westminster tradition has not been studied as well as it should have been. In regard to question time, the fact is that we have exemplified in Westminster true supplementaries, where—as learned colleagues like you, Mr Speaker, know—it is a bit like a grilling in court, with continued supplementary questions on the topic. In fact, it works so successfully that they continue until exhausted and then they move on to the next topic. But we have never had that maturity in this place. I hope that this is the first step towards that.

The member for Lyne gets blamed for lots of things that happen here. I was not going to enter this debate, but he made a very worthwhile comment about something that is not contained in these amendments, and that is the hours of sitting. That is the reason I felt that I should come down to support his comments and to urge us to adopt the types of things that Dr Washer, the member for Moore, has been pursuing consistently over many years. We should consider the way in which we run this place. I am not sure that we ever get a pat on the back because we are here at ungodly hours doing our business. In a way, there is an expectation that we work the 24 hours. But in fairness to the people who support us in this place we should act with more certainty.

Regrettably, I am in a minority of people in this place who think that we should alter the balance in our work. I believe that our role as legislators is just as important as our role as local members. The work that we do here is just as important as the work that we do in our electorates. I think it is a reflection of the undue influence that executive government exerts on backbench members of this place that we have this balance such that people are encouraged to go back to their electorates to do their work there, because their important work is back in the electorate. I see this place as the House of Representatives. I come here to represent the people who have elected me. There is much that is worth while that happens in Canberra while the parliament is sitting that we should devote more time to. And not by lengthening the hours in the weeks that we are here but perhaps by making sure that people understand that our role is to be here in Canberra and that we should be here more often.

The amount of time that people spend on their committee work is quite extraordinary and is not understood by the public. But it is limited to the time that we are here when the parliament is sitting. That is unfortunate. I hope that we get to a stage such that as a vibrant parliament we see that the role of the backbencher, especially when in government, is to question and to be involved in policy development. The media place pressure on us by saying that if we have a slightly different view to the leadership or to the minister then that is the end of the earth and that it is great disunity. It is ridiculous to think, for instance, that in this current minority government a caucus of about 100 people would all have the same view. The fact that we from time to time might express those different views has nothing to do with disunity; that has to do with the proper place of dialogue and debate in policy development. That should be encouraged rather than people running around saying, 'This is the end of the world as we know it,' because somebody disagrees with the Prime Minister or a minister. That is a debate for another day. I am perhaps digressing

I thank all of those who have worked in a cooperative manner to get us to this point in time with these changes to the standing orders. I would reflect that these changes are minor. Their impact might be major, but there is still work to do. I look forward to that and I wish you every success, Mr Speaker, in your endeavours in encouraging the Procedure Committee to influence those who make these decisions to have them presented before us so that we can vote on them. Regarding the Federation Chamber, it took a long time. I congratulate you on getting that over the line. It must be amazing for people to reflect on the fact that for such a minor thing, which was agreed upon by a bipartisan committee of this parliament eight years ago, we have had to wait so long. I thoroughly support the amendments to the standing orders before the chamber today.

See this speech in context