Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to speak without closing the debate.

Leave granted.

I do not propose to speak for very long in relation to this matter. I tabled this report on behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure in the absence of the chair on 27 March. The report basically covers two areas. The first area is that current standing order 11(g) does not permit debate to take place on the election of a Speaker unless there is more than one candidate. This provision was the same in the former standing orders. In recent times we have had Speakers elected unopposed and members, whilst they have spoken, have strictly been outside the standing orders, and that point has been made by the Clerk at the relevant time.

The committee felt it was important that, even if a Speaker was elected unopposed—there was only the one candidate—the mover and seconder should be allowed to say something on their candidate’s behalf, for a number of reasons. It is a matter of record. At the time, I think it is important and it adds to an occasion when a member moves and another seconds someone for a particular position. It is important that they be given an opportunity to say why it is that that person is suited for the job. Even if there is no election, if the Speaker is unopposed, it is an important part of the record that the mover and seconder can point out particular qualities of the candidate for Speaker. We feel that that recommendation is not contentious; it is one that adds to the dignity of the moment.

The second recommendation, the main one, relates to the fact that currently the explanatory memorandum to a bill is presented at the end of the minister’s second reading speech. The committee has considered the proposal that the explanatory memorandum be presented when the bill is introduced, at the first reading stage. We are of the view that it is appropriate that an explanatory memorandum be tabled at the same time as the presentation of a bill—at the beginning.

The committee recommends that standing orders 141 and 142 be amended to provide that the explanatory memorandum to a bill be presented when the bill is presented, rather than at the conclusion of the minister’s second reading speech. Some recent instances where it would have been more appropriate for that to have happened have been laid out in the report. Again, it is non-contentious. The important thing that the Procedure Committee does in its ongoing review of the standing orders is to pick up the practicalities of some of the standing orders, to see whether they can be modernised, consistent with modern practices. This is in order not to provide advantage for one side over the other but to have something that both sides can embrace. Ever since explanatory memorandums have been produced it does seem to have been standard practice for them to be released to members and to the public at the same time as the bill is released—that is, when the bill is presented. We think that this should be picked up. Again, it is non-contentious.

I commend the recommendations of the committee to the House. I thank the chair of the committee, the honourable member for McPherson, for the courteous way in which she conducts herself as chair of this committee and for the way that she seeks to obtain cross-party support for recommendations. She does not run the committee in a partisan way—nor should it be run that way. I know that there will be some more far-reaching recommendations put to the parliament on behalf of the committee. A number of members of the committee recently had the opportunity to use their study allowance to go overseas. I was not one of them—probably for the betterment of other members of the committee. I know that they have come back with enthusiasm for some reform that might be achieved in the House. The report before the House is non-contentious. I think there are two areas: to standardise the practice and to make it more commonsense.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Chair of the Procedure Committee, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak today on this report, Maintenance of the standing and sessional orders: first report: debate on the election of Speaker. I would first like to thank the deputy chairman, the member for Banks, who is here in the chamber today, for tabling the report in my absence, on 27 March. Unfortunately, I was not in Canberra. The deputy chairman did a great job in tabling the report. I would like to put on record my thanks to all the committee members. They were unable to speak on the report on that day, I understand, because the Prime Minister of Britain was speaking to a joint sitting of both houses. I am delighted that today there are a number of members of the committee here who are going to speak. I am certainly delighted that I am able to say a few words on this report today.

The recommendations of the report, I am pleased to say, have already been implemented. The relevant standing orders, Nos 11, 141 and 142, have been amended to reflect those changes. In fact, those changes were made on 29 March. I would like to put on record today a few comments with regard to the report. I hope my committee members will bear with me while I put on record the two issues we looked at. This is the first report of an ongoing inquiry into the maintenance of the standing and sessional orders. The two matters that were discussed and that are in the report, as the deputy chairman has alluded to, were the debate on the election of the Speaker and the presentation of explanatory memorandums. Both these matters were brought to the attention of the committee for investigation and for us to have a bit of a hard look at.

During the election of the Speaker at the start of this parliament, I imagine that no member present had any inkling that the standing orders were not being observed when the member for Corangamite spoke for a few minutes in support of his nominee for the speakership. It just seemed a natural thing to do. I am sure the member for Corangamite thought so too at the time. Now that we have this precedent, we can look at it and say, ‘What harm was done?’ The committee could certainly see no harm. Indeed, we saw benefits in allowing the mover and seconder of a nominee for the speakership to introduce their candidate to the House.

When there is only a single candidate, such introduction is possibly technically unnecessary as the House does not have a choice to make. However, nowadays, at the start of each parliament, when most Speakers are elected, there could be many new members who would appreciate a brief outline of the background of the person proposed to be their Speaker. There are also people in the public galleries, which are full on that day, to consider and an increasing number of television viewers. As one of my colleagues pointed out, it is also useful to have such an account in the Hansard record. The deputy chairman has certainly alluded to that. The committee therefore recommended that the mover and seconder of all nominees for Speaker be able to speak for five minutes each in support of their candidate as now there will be no further debate unless there are two or more nominees.

The second topic in this report, the timing of the presentation of explanatory memorandums to bills, became an issue in the House with the presentation and second reading debate of the workplace relations bill in November last year. There was, as it turned out, a misunderstanding in relation to the release of the bill’s explanatory memorandum, which could have been avoided had our recommendations been in effect at that time. Previously the explanatory memorandum to a bill was presented at the end of the minister’s second reading speech. The Procedure Committee recommended that the explanatory memorandum be presented when the bill is introduced, at the first reading stage. This is to avoid any supposition or expectation that the public release of any explanatory memorandum has to be delayed until after the minister’s speech. Usually, of course, such a delay could only be a few minutes. But, as we saw last November, intervening proceedings could cause a longer delay. Theoretically, the second reading speech could be on an even later day. While it seems to have always been the usual practice for the Table Office to release explanatory memorandums at the same time as the bill, it is possible to interpret the standing orders as requiring them to be kept under embargo until they have been presented. To avoid uncertainty it is preferable that standing orders and administrative practice should align, and our recommendations in this report certainly did that.

As I said earlier, the recommendations in the report have been adopted and the standing orders have been amended. However, this report is only the first report of the Procedure Committee’s ongoing inquiry into the maintenance of the standing and sessional orders. The committee will review the sessional orders—and there are quite a number of them—adopted by the House on 9 February.

One of those sessional orders in particular relates to expanding the time available to members for debating committee and delegation reports. Prior to my speaking today we just heard the honourable member for Blair and other colleagues speaking on a delegation report on a trip to Iraq. It has certainly given members huge opportunities to speak on delegation reports and also committee reports, those reports that they have put a lot of time and effort into. It has given them that extra time on a Monday. The day the report is tabled in the House, we are allowing two hours now on Monday afternoons for the debate of those committee and delegation reports. I would say that for those members who are utilising that time they see it as of great benefit to themselves, even in their communities. They are able to speak to those reports and put on record their own interpretations of trips they have had. We have heard from the member for Blair today about that very exciting trip to Iraq.

As I said, there are more to come. Of interest to you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Scott, may be the maintenance of order in the Main Committee. The deputy speaker brought that matter to the committee for consideration. These changes that we have recommended can now be utilised here in the Main Committee. They provide additional options for the chair of the Main Committee to maintain order—in particular, the new provision of being able to direct a member or members to leave the room for a period of 15 minutes and the discretion the chair now has as to whether or not to report the disorder to the House. I think that strengthens the role of the Deputy Speaker here in the Main Committee.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Price interjecting

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, prior to these changes, in cases of disorderly conduct occurring in the Main Committee the chair could only suspend or adjourn the committee and report the disorder to the House. Generally, such reports have resulted in the naming and suspension of the member concerned.

There is also the issue of members’ three-minute statements in the Main Committee. Often, if there was a division in the main chamber that happened during those three-minute statements, that time was lost to members. That time has been given to members and will not now be lost if a division happens during that 30-minute period. There are speaking times for dissent motions and the anticipation rule. They are all recommendations of the Procedure Committee and are all sessional orders which we will be reviewing as a committee.

We would also like to encourage members to give some feedback on those sessional orders. It is important that we as a procedure committee take on board any issues that members may have and any expansion or strengthening of standing or sessional orders that they would like to see in this House. Members must remember that this is their House. This is their place, where they put on record their thoughts and speak to their bills, their reports and their delegation reports. So it is up to members to give us some input so that we know where they are coming from, can help them and very much strengthen and modernise the processes of the House.

Before completing my remarks today, I place on record my particular thanks to the committee secretariat for all of their work. They certainly do a tremendous job. Judy Middlebrook, the secretary of the committee, accompanied those members who went on the overseas delegation recently. There will be a report tabled, hopefully within the next few months, on our trip overseas. The members for Charlton and for Chifley are in the chamber today, both of whom came on the trip. I think all would agree that we have come back with a lot of enthusiasm for some changes that we hope to see happen in the House.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even the secretary!

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, even the secretary of the committee. She has some great ideas. I thank Judy Middlebrook in particular for accompanying us on the trip and for all her advice and support over the past 12 months in the committee with the changes we are hoping to implement. I also thank Peter Fowler. I commend the report to the House.

Kelly Hoare (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The report that we are speaking on today, Maintenance of the standing and sessional orders: first report: debate on the election of Speaker, is the first of the inquiry into the maintenance of the standing and sessional orders. The committee was of the view that there are various issues brought to its attention in relation to standing orders that are relatively minor and which we do not necessarily need to have a full-blown separate inquiry into. That allows the committee to address those concerns and issues and to make recommendations about them. As the chair of the committee has said, this is the first report of what will be an ongoing inquiry.

As other speakers have indicated, there are three recommendations. Two are main recommendations and one is incidental. The first recommendation relates to the debate on the election of the Speaker, which others have spoken about. As the standing orders stood, there was no opportunity for any debate, discussion or speeches in relation to supporting a candidate for Speaker when there was only one candidate. If members would like to have a look at this first report, on pages 2 and 3 they will see that there are two different ways that the Speaker is elected and that the discussion on the election of the Speaker happens in the House of Representatives. The first example given is on the election of the former member for Wakefield as Speaker in 2002. If you look at that example, you will see that it was a very short nomination and acceptance process.

On page 3 of our report, the member for Corangamite and the member for Mallee both had something to say on the nomination and the seconding of the nomination of the Speaker in the parliament on 16 November 2004. The subtitle of this chapter in our report is called ‘Background—the Clerk’s “uncomfortable duty”’. There was an interjection by the Clerk on that day, where he said:

It is my uncomfortable duty to remind the House that it is strictly not in order to speak in favour of the candidates unless the election is contested.

In changing this standing order we have allowed that to happen so that, following an election, the nominee and the seconder of the Speaker in the House of Representatives are not breaking standing orders by supporting their nomination.

Another recommendation is on the presentation of explanatory memorandums. The standing orders as they were allowed for the explanatory memorandum to a bill to be presented at the end of the minister’s second reading speech. However, in November last year, because of various activities in the chamber at that time, the minister’s second reading speech on the workplace relations legislation ended a couple of hours after he began it, so there was a time lag and there was confusion in the Table Office as to whether the explanatory memorandum should have been made public when it was not actually presented to the House of Representatives. The change to this standing order has been made to allow the EM to be presented to the parliament at the same time as the bill is introduced to the parliament and provides for access to that explanatory memorandum. I am pleased to say that both of these recommendations have been accepted and implemented.

As outlined, the ongoing inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure into the maintenance of the standing and sessional orders also includes the review by the committee of those sessional orders which have not yet been made into standing orders. They have been put in place for a specific period to allow the committee and other members of the House to review them and to make recommendations, expand upon them and provide feedback to the committee. I understand that the sessional orders do not become standing orders without the support of members. Later this year the chair will be writing to all members of the House of Representatives reminding members of the changes and these new sessional orders and requesting feedback.

One of the major sessional orders is the one that provides the opportunity that we now have on a Monday afternoon from 4 pm to 6 pm in the Main Committee to discuss delegation and committee reports. We all put a lot of time into committee work. Committee work is very important parliamentary work. Committees, by and large, end up with the unanimous reports, with specific recommendations for the government of the day. The first committee I was on after my election in 1998 was the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. The report of that committee was entitled Unlocking the future. It was a report of the inquiry into the Reeves review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.

For me, as a new member of parliament, it was quite an extraordinary experience. The clerk at the table was the secretary of that committee at that time and would probably agree with me that visiting those places and meeting the people as we travelled across the breadth and width of the Northern Territory in Caribou aeroplanes was an amazing experience. An extended period of time to discuss our reports, our interpretation of them and our experiences of the inquiries that we participate in is a much-welcomed recommendation. It has been implemented now as a sessional order, but we would like to see that feedback. It also provides an opportunity for members who are not members of a committee but may have a specific interest in a particular report of a committee. One that springs to mind is Every picture tells a story, where there is not the opportunity for all members to participate in the inquiry but we all have a personal and professional interest in the areas in which the recommendations were made. I know I made a contribution to that. There were also another two that I would have liked to make contributions to, but I was not a member of those committees. One was the Boys: getting it right report on the inquiry into the education of boys and the other was Working for Australia’s future: increasing participation in the workforce, which was from the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation.

So it is a welcome result. I would encourage all members to make use of the time available to them. We now have these extra two hours every sitting Monday. It gives us the opportunity to speak on a report at its currency, not weeks or months down the track. It also gives us the opportunity to put that in the context of our own electorates and communities. As I said, the chair will be writing to all members to seek feedback on some of these changes. In conclusion, can I place on the record my thanks to the chair and the deputy chair for the way that these inquiries are conducted and to my fellow committee members. I also thank the secretariat, in particular Judy Middlebrook; thanks for all your assistance and support. I look forward to participating in more discussions in the Main Committee between 4 o’clock and 6 o’clock on a Monday evening.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the remarks of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Procedure. The report entitled Maintenance of the standing and sessional orders: first report: debate on the election of Speaker, which we are currently considering, is noteworthy for the speed with which it has been implemented. I wish I could say that about all other reports. As has already been said, it deals with the nomination and seconding of a new Speaker and—as we have a learned deputy speaker in the chamber—whether or not the Clerk was within standing orders in permitting such a nomination and seconding. I think the whole purpose of this report is to indicate that perhaps he was outside the standing orders. This makes a change so that if there is only one nomination then both the nominator and the seconder can still speak.

My party has been associated with a proposal for an independent Speaker, under the former leader the honourable member for Hotham, Simon Crean. I thought that that proposal was a very worthwhile addition to the discussion about parliamentary reform, but I remain of the view that, more than just an independent Speaker, it is the commitment of a government—and in particular of the Leader of the House—to parliamentary reform that is the key to lifting the standards in parliament. In my party, we are prepared to embrace parliamentary reform in the interests of the people.

The Procedure Committee sounds quite an arcane sort of title for any particular committee, but it has done good work over some time. If I mentioned the lack of commitment to reform, can I mention some reports: the excellent report initiated by former Speaker Andrews about reducing the time of second reading speeches to 15 minutes and allowing five minutes of questions. It is a proposal that was designed to ensure that there was a greater interaction, particularly in the House itself. That report has languished and not been responded to. We brought down an excellent committee report and recommendation on establishing an estimates committee. I might say that all these things are unanimous proposals of the Procedure Committee. Again, the proposal for an estimates committee languishes without support in the government. Three parliaments ago, the then Chair of the Procedure Committee, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, now Special Minister of State, brought down a report about changing the proceedings for the opening of parliament, including a component of an Indigenous welcome in those proceedings. That report has never been responded to.

With regard to the tabling of reports that have been referred to, let me say that I am unequivocally very supportive not only of the proposals of the Procedure Committee but also of the fact that they be adopted. If I am critical of any area, it is the lack of response by chairs and deputy chairs of parliamentary committees expressing views about how these procedures should operate. I do hope that chairs and deputy chairs in particular take up the invitation of the chair of the Procedure Committee to respond. This is a significant improvement on pre-existing arrangements. Any member of the House, as well as those committee members who have worked so hard on committee reports, gets a timely opportunity to make a contribution. Again, I do not walk away from the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, but I might say that I was personally in favour of having the whole procedure done on a Monday morning in the Main Committee—that is, the initial tabling and debate of the report on a Monday morning. That did not happen but, again, I in no way wish to denigrate or walk away from my support and the unanimous acceptance of the current arrangements as they exist.

We are going to review the 15 minute sin-bin rule that has been instituted in the Main Committee. I would be less than honest if I said I did not have some reservations about it. This is supposed to be a very informal, interactive chamber. That is its character and nature, and I think we should try to preserve it. If the Deputy Speaker or the Speaker’s panel are of a mind to implement it, as I say, I think it should be done judiciously, cautiously and only at an extreme. I place on the public record that I do not believe it should be applied in some way in terms of the standing orders on relevance in debating legislation in this chamber. If it is used to enforce a very strict application of relevance, the opposition would need to rethink its attitude. It has not happened, and I am pleased that that is the case. Again, as the chair of the committee has said, the preservation of three-minute statements in the Main Committee, notwithstanding any divisions that may occur in the House, is a giant step forward, and I know it will be of great benefit to all members of the House.

Some discussion has been had of the trip of the Procedure Committee. I place on record my thanks to the chair of the committee, who led the delegation, and the secretary for being the one who was involved in heaps of arrangements and last-minute scrambling on occasion. It is true that we have come back really fired up and enthusiastic about further reform. But that will come to naught if members of this House do not take the time and the trouble to acquaint themselves with what it is that the Procedure Committee is proposing, whether they are in government or whether they are in opposition.

I will finish on a couple of notes. The Procedure Committee has always in its recommendations gone out of its way to enhance the opportunities for ordinary members in this place, whether we are bringing down reports about the way committees are run, whether we are looking at changing standing orders or whether we are entrenching things like the three-minute statements. There are no two better examples, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—and I know that you are Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—of important reports than the reports on Australia’s defence relations with the United States and a report about a delegation visit to Iraq. The fact is that under previous arrangements the only speaking time would have been five minutes a side in the House and then many weeks later, if people were of a mind to then debate it. But we now have a very timely handling of committee reports.

Committees do two things. Firstly, they are the universities of the parliament. It is an opportunity for all members of parliament to gain greater knowledge and understanding of important issues affecting our constituents. Secondly, in my view, it puts on display the best traditions of the parliament—that is, members of parliament coming together to tackle an issue or a question in the best interests of the nation. They are on that parliamentary committee not as a National Party member, not as a Liberal Party member, not as a Labor Party member but as members of a committee determined to do the best by the people of Australia. I have always believed in parliamentary committees and in enhancing and expanding their roles. Last, but not least, I repeat what I started with. I belong to a party that believes in robust parliamentary reform. The pendulum of executive dominance of this place has reached an extreme and we have to start winding it back.

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

I welcome not only the opportunity that is given by the discussion of this first report of the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into the maintenance of the standing and sessional orders to discuss the recommendations of that first report with regard to the debate on the election of Speaker and the presentation of explanatory memorandums but also the opportunity to review the work of the Procedure Committee. It is something of an indictment of the way members of the House show little interest in the work of the Procedure Committee that I am the only person outside of the committee to enter into this debate. I have to admit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in part I was dragooned into this debate—but that is the way of the Chief Opposition Whip, perhaps encouraging me to set my mind to this task.

Much of what has been said in the discussion of this report is, I think, very important. The Procedure Committee, especially in this parliament and the last parliament, has well and truly set out to modernise the way in which we look at our work here in the parliament. Think of how the standing orders are now presented and then think how they were presented only a couple of parliaments ago, before the plain English standing orders came in. What a mystery just the words were, let alone the practices. We have tackled some of the problems in relation to these two aspects, the debate on the election of Speaker and the presentation of explanatory memorandums, and we have ensured the importance of the issue of executive governments putting a proposition after the committee has reported to the parliament to then be voted on.

I want to briefly talk about these two items and then perhaps talk at greater length about the work of the committee. One of the things we see is that sometimes, whether unwittingly or deliberately, members can seek change. The change to standing order 11 needs to be called the McArthur amendment. The fact is that the committee has fitted the honourable member for Corangamite by showing that in 2002 he was aware of what the standing orders allowed and then in 2004 he pushed the envelope a little bit, which suggests Fergus actually knew what he was doing.

The main thing is that the parliament, through the Procedure Committee, has picked it up. I think that this is a much more satisfactory arrangement. When you compare the election in 2002 to the election in 2004, for all the reasons that have been mentioned, it is obvious that the mover and seconder should get a chance to speak, even where there is not to be a contest. However, those who are proposing this course of action in the future, where they think they are going to be unopposed, should pick their movers and seconders wisely. I am sorry that the honourable member for Chifley has left the chamber, but he will know what I am alluding to there.

The bit about explanatory memorandums also makes a lot of sense. People think that a government should give some of the reasons behind a bill at the time that it is first presented. It is, in a way, an anachronism to have it tabled at the end of the second reading speech, which is partly into the second part of the proceedings of the parliament in considering legislation. For all the reasons that the chair of the committee gave in this debate today—and one particular instance was highlighted—I think that it goes not only to solving those problems but to providing a much better and clearer way for people who are observing and for the practitioners, as members of parliament, to look at legislation.

Let us review some of the ideas. As the election of the Speaker is one of the main things we see on the opening day of parliament, I was surprised that the honourable member for Chifley reminded us that it was over three parliaments ago that a previous Procedure Committee reported on new ideas for the opening of parliament. That is one area where there is an interface with the public and where we could change the way in which we present ourselves. As members of the House of Representatives, we traipse over to the other place to listen to the Governor-General’s address on behalf of the government. In the opening of parliament report it was suggested that the Great Hall be used as neutral ground. There was discussion of an Indigenous component to the opening day. I think that these things would make for a proceeding that reflects much more a modern Australia. If we are going to modernise and strengthen the standing orders, that is one way that we can grab that banner, to show people that this parliament is serious about those matters.

I reflect on when we went down to Melbourne to celebrate the centenary of the opening of parliament. The opening of parliament took place in the Exhibition Building, then the two houses went off to start their business in the chambers of the Victorian parliament. We mirrored that in the way that we conducted ourselves on the centenary of parliament. We met in the Exhibition Building and then we went the next day to our chambers. Even over 100 years ago, the founding fathers of Federation had an idea about the way in which they would do things.

Mention has been made of the Procedure Committee’s recent study tour. A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit the Palace of Westminster and also the National Assembly for Wales, which was a greenfield site. I think that we as parliamentary practitioners need to look at both those systems. One is the parent of all Westminster parliaments. It plays a very definite role in ensuring that it is open to change. It has a modernisation committee that not only goes to the procedures of the parliament but looks at the way in which other things are done. The Welsh Assembly is exciting because, as I said, it is a greenfield site. It is open for people to think of different ways of doing things. At the time I visited, the officers were very excited by the way in which technology could be used. I hope that that was embraced by the members, but I am not too sure. We will listen very intently to the report of the Procedure Committee about that study tour.

The other matter I wish to go to is that in strengthening the role and the opportunities for private members the Procedure Committee is clearly indicating that they understand that, in the modern interpretation of the Westminster system that we see in place in Australia, it is very important for private members to see that they have a role outside the party disciplines. That is something that I have talked about often in this place. As a person who was a backbencher in a government I know how difficult it is to decide how far you go within the party disciplines to put the executive on notice through the parliamentary processes, or whether you only use the party processes.

I thought it was quite exciting last year to see the changed way that—despite the present government having the numbers in both chambers—within the parties that make up the coalition, private members were pushing the envelope to put the executive government on notice. As has been said, much of the work done by parliamentary committees is usually done on a unanimous basis, by consensus and by cutting back on things to try to get an agreement. But it is important that private members push through the ideas, whether they be the subjects mentioned by the honourable member for Charlton or other subjects.

I look at some of the parliamentary committees that I have been on—the sustainable cities committee inquiry that reported early in this parliament and the committee that reported into Indigenous health. There is a lot of discussion through the sustainable cities inquiry outside the parliament—the community seems to have embraced it. With the Indigenous health inquiry, we asked that parliament keep that debate up. Regrettably, it lapsed and now we find that we are having a debate that I think will be polarised because party positions will be taken, whereas we could have moved forward from that committee report and continued the dialogue and discussion without that partisan debate. That would have been important.

I think the Procedure Committee is to be congratulated on continuing a developing tradition of protecting the rights of private members, suggesting to government that there is a way of ensuring that government business can go forward at the same time as giving private members additional opportunities. I look forward to further discussion of the maintenance of the standing and sessional orders inquiry that the Procedure Committee has in place. I congratulate the committee on this first report and its ongoing work.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.