Carmen Lawrence (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the previous speaker, the member for Stirling, indicated, we are approaching the 10th anniversary of the Howard government. I add that it has been 20 years since I first became a parliamentarian, starting in Western Australia, and I thought it was time to reflect briefly on this institution, the parliament, and the way it is run. Parliaments are the most visible symbols of our democracy, where theoretically decisions are made by the elected representatives of the people, but domination by the executive remains a hallmark of Australian politics and, despite what the Prime Minister has been saying lately, parliament is often sidelined from key decisions. I think it is long overdue for substantial reform to enable it to take greater responsibility for its own affairs and to act more independently of the government of the day. Our current system is increasingly based on the rubber-stamp model of government—what some people have called an elected autocracy—where the government determines all the policy without much reference to the parliament.

In this scenario, MPs are here for no other purpose than to register the choice of voters. We might ask: why have a parliament at all when it would appear there is so little justification for all the effort and expense entailed? It is interesting that at the same time as MPs lecture the community about the need for greater flexibility and efficiency we participate in one of the most rigid and inefficient institutions in the country. Indeed, the same politicians who advocate flexibility and reform in other workplaces cling to conventions and practices which always had design flaws and which have ossified into caricatures of themselves.

I make a number of suggestions today for a modest start to reforming our parliament: establishing a House of Representatives modernisation committee to look at the practices and procedures of the House to make us more up to date and more open and engaged with the public; installing an independent Speaker; establishing a cross-party parliamentary commission responsible for staffing and appropriations; establishing a House of Representatives business committee with cross-party representation to determine the business of the House, regularly endorsed by the parliamentarians; introducing electronic voting; having parties introduce three-line-whip procedures to give members more discretion in voting; better displaying of the activities of the House, including electronic bulletin boards of current activities—for instance, which bill is being debated, who is speaking, what motions or amendments et cetera are being debated; and, very importantly, reforming the standing orders to improve question time.

Question time, I need not tell you, Mr Speaker, is a notorious source of disaffection for anyone but the most ardent political insiders. It is often mentioned by voters as one of the most irritating of parliamentary procedures with its aggressive and insulting language, accusations instead of questions, replies that contain no information and evade the question, and gratuitous attacks on political opponents, all in the atmosphere of an unruly locker room complete with a sin bin. The occasionally raucous and frequently rude behaviour of MPs leaves most people—and many MPs—cold. It is not even very good theatre—B-class at best.

It is difficult not to agree with Coghill’s assertion that ‘the rules for question time are so ridiculous it is no surprise that they generate the type of behaviour we see on the nightly news’, and I endorse his contention that it has ‘degenerated almost to a farce’. As a result, question time rarely functions as it was intended: as a means of ensuring accountability of the executive, exposing abuses of power and corruption, and challenging the arbitrary exercise of power by the government. These are serious matters and they are not to be joked about. The standing orders and, perhaps more importantly, the approach of the government do not require that responses be particularly relevant to the question let alone provide an answer. While people complain, there has been little real appetite for reform either from MPs themselves or from those in the media gallery who are forced to witness the charade.

I believe it is time to reform the standing orders to improve question time. I have a few suggestions: dorothy dix questions should not be permitted at all; the majority of questions should be allocated to the opposition; ministerial statements should be used to outline government policies; time limits should be applied to both questions and answers; supplementary questions should be allowed; standing orders should be amended to require that questions be answered; the House could adopt a ‘take note’ procedure similar to that of the Senate, allowing follow up; and questions should be asked directly to the responsible minister, not through the chair.

I could make a number of other suggestions, particularly around the question of debating and the role of committees. In recent months, I have put forward the democratic project, which calls for major reform of this parliament. I think it is a scandal that we do not look at our own performance in this place. It is a scandal that members are apparently content to sit by while they are sidelined from the most important decisions this nation makes and are not in a position to hold the government accountable. I think it is time we had a democratic project which reforms this parliament. After 100 years, I think it is well overdue.