Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

I endorse this report and the remarks of the member for Boothby, who has taken over the chair of the Procedure Committee following the tragic passing of the member for Canning and who has conducted this report since that event.

Concerns have been raised for many years regarding the conduct of the main appropriation debate and, as the member for Boothby said, specifically the allocation of the call. Most recently, the member for Grayndler raised concerns to the committee about the allocation of the call resulting in an unequal allocation of time in the debate between government and non-government speakers. The call has been allocated as if it were question time; however, question time is not a debate; the consideration in detail of the main appropriation is a debate and members have a right to make a contribution within the rules of a debate that they see fit. For example, they may ask the minister a question or they may move an amendment to a bill to reduce the amount of expenditure. The report recognises how the allocation of the call has led to concerns about the debate but also recognises that members were more satisfied with the debate when there was free-flowing interchange of short questions and answers. I think both ministers and members have got into bad habits of using the full amount of time.

Therefore, the committee has made a number of recommendations aimed at clarifying the rules around the debate and recognising the benefit of short statements. It has also recommended that members be permitted to speak for an unlimited number of two-minute periods. This would be a reduction from the five minutes allowed for other consideration-in-detail debates. The report offers some guidance as to those members chairing the debate to assist them in this duty. It also offers guidance for participants so they may achieve a more interactive debate.

The committee has also suggested that the Speaker make a statement to the House, as the member for Boothby said, and that that be repeated by the Deputy Speaker in the Federation Chamber so that people who are participating in the debate will understand what they are doing; and it will facilitate the participation of members in the debate.

As the member for Boothby said, there are two specific recommendations of this report. There are a couple of interesting points that were made in the committee's report about the proposed sessional orders, which I would like to incorporate into Hansard.

3.20   Currently, consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill is governed by the same standing orders that apply to the consideration in detail of other bills. The Clerk of the House has suggested that this debate ‘differs so much from the normal consideration in detail process that it should have its own rules clearly set out.’ As a minimum, the Clerk suggested that:

it would be helpful to chairs, ministers and Members generally if the existing standing orders specifically applying to the budget and estimates debates could be co-located (that is moved, copied or at least cross-referenced) under the section of the standing Orders headed Financial Procedures.

3.21   In the Committee’s opinion, the annual consideration of the budget and the consideration in detail stage, in particular, are unique, and of such importance, that the procedures for the main appropriation bill should be explicitly provided for in the Standing Orders, to make clear:

The Clerk has drafted proposed sessional orders, and I think the committee's report has made some recommendations that will deal with bad habits that the main appropriation bill consideration in detail has got into. I commend the chair for this report. I think it will be a valuable step in getting the parliament back into using this important debate for the purpose for which it was meant.

See this speech in context