Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report entitled Consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill together with the minutes of proceedings.

I am pleased to present the Procedure Committee's report on its inquiry into the consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill. The consideration in detail of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) is an important part of the annual budget debate. It gives members from both sides of the House the opportunity to examine the detail of the bill and to debate and question ministers on proposed expenditure for their portfolio area.

In recent years, however, members have expressed concern that the conduct of the debate limits opportunities for effective government scrutiny. In particular, members are concerned about the allocation of the call and the length of speeches during the debate. During last year's budget debate, members raised these issues in the House. The then Speaker, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, referred the matter to the Procedure Committee, requesting that the committee find a consistent approach that would be more satisfactory to members.

Current practice is that both government backbenchers and non-government members participate in consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill, usually directing questions to the relevant minister. With more government backbenchers participating, the call is now typically allocated as it is during question time—government member, minister, non-government member, minister and so on. This is inconsistent with the practice applying in all other debates. There are concerns that the allocation of the call in this way results in a disproportionate allocation of time to the government side, more than two-thirds instead of about half.

The committee notes the principle that in all debates, as far as practical, the call should alternate between government and non-government members and should allow both sides roughly equal speaking time. This report asserts that effective scrutiny of the main appropriation bill would be enhanced by a more balanced distribution of speaking opportunities between government and non-government members and suggests ways to achieve this.

The allocation of the call did not seem to be such an issue when members, including ministers, confined their contributions to a short question or answer or to a short debating point. The current practice of members making long speeches, often taking the full five minutes available to them, has significantly changed the nature of the debate.

This report recommends a trial of shorter time limits, allowing members an unlimited number of two-minute contributions. The committee hopes that shorter time limits will re-energise the debate, encourage greater interaction between participants, encourage more direct responses by ministers and allow for contributions by a greater number of members.

Through the course of its inquiry, the committee identified some uncertainty amongst members regarding the purpose and conduct of the consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill. The report, therefore, recommends that the House adopt sessional orders which clarify the existing rules applying to the debate for the benefit of chairs and participants. The report also suggests that the Speaker make a statement to the House, to be repeated by the Deputy Speaker in the Federation Chamber, prior to the commencement of the consideration in detail stage, to offer some guidance to members regarding their roles in the proceedings and the practice and procedures applying to this debate.

The committee would like to see the House adopt the proposed sessional orders in time for this year's budget debate. If the trial of these measures is successful, they could be adopted as permanent procedures for the 45th Parliament. I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context