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

I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure report, Learning from other parliaments: study program 2006. While I was not able to participate in this study tour of parliaments in the United Kingdom and France, I am speaking to the report because as deputy chair of the committee I have a keen interest in some of the issues that arose during the trip.

Committee members visited the House of Commons and the House of Lords in London; the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh; the Tynwald in Douglas, on the Isle of Man; the National Assembly for Wales in Cardiff; and the French National Assembly in Paris. The committee observed some significant differences between the way proceedings are conducted in the chambers of these parliaments and the way we conduct proceedings in our own chamber. Some major themes on which the committee reported were: encouraging an interactive debating chamber; formal votes; programming business; electing a Speaker; question time; and opportunities for private members.

It is interesting to note the high level of interaction involved with debates in other chambers. Members are expected to be present in the chamber for much longer than is the case in the House of Representatives. For example, in the House of Commons, any member wishing to participate in a debate is expected to be present at the beginning of the debate and, after speaking, members usually remain in the chamber for at least the following member’s speech. The Speaker is unlikely to allocate the call to a member who has not been listening to the debate in the chamber. There is a convention in the Scottish parliament that a member wishing to speak should be in the chamber for the whole debate—but, more strictly, they are expected to be present for at least the preceding and following speakers.

The House of Commons and the Scottish parliament also allow interventions, similar to the practice in our Main Committee chamber. The practice is common in the Scottish parliament, where one member estimated that about half the speeches in the chamber have an intervention. In this context, I note the Procedure Committee has, in a previous report, recommended a mechanism to support more interactive debating in the chamber. It is proposed that second reading speeches be cut from 20 minutes to 15 minutes, with an optional five-minute question and answer period at the end. While this recommendation has not yet been adopted, I believe it has fairly broad support from both sides of the parliament.

Another aspect of particular interest to me was hearing about the way in which other parliaments similar to our own conduct question time. Members on the study tour observed the equivalent of question time in the House of Commons, the Scottish parliament and the French National Assembly and noted that they were not marked by the level of political disputation that is common during question time in the Australian House of Representatives. There are some interesting aspects of the process in the House of Commons that may be relevant to this. While it is not something that I would personally support, points of order are not generally allowed during question time but are heard at the end, and there is no process for dissenting from the Speaker’s ruling. Also, the rules relating to questions and, perhaps more significantly, answers in the House of Commons are more detailed than those of the House of Representatives. These rules are set out in their parliamentary practice rather than the standing orders.

Another factor which may result in a more orderly and useful question time is that some parliaments have time limits on questions and answers. For example, in Wales, the time limit for a question and answer is three minutes in total. Similarly, in France, the time limit for a question and answer is five minutes. Under rules such as these, it is obvious that if a member’s question was too long it would not leave much time for an adequate answer. Therefore, questions would become more direct and concise, which may lead to answers also becoming more direct and concise. As the committee reported, time limits would certainly not permit a leisurely canvassing of alternative policies.

I would also like to briefly comment on opportunities for private members. This is one area in which the committee believes that the House of Representatives performs particularly well in comparison with other parliaments. Our members seem to have more opportunities to speak on matters of personal interest and the interests of their electorates than members in comparable national parliaments. The committee also noted that the House of Commons acknowledges the model of our Main Committee in its development of Westminster Hall, an innovation which has significantly improved the opportunities for their private members.

I believe that a number of issues arising from this study tour of other parliaments would be worth while investigating, to see if any improvements can be made to the way in which we conduct proceedings in our own chamber. Following the study tour, the Standing Committee on Procedure has initiated two inquiries—one into the petitioning process and another into encouraging an interactive chamber. I would encourage all members to consider providing input into these inquiries.

I commend the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure who went on this study tour. They used money from their allowance for study tours to come up with this report. I think the parliament has a bit to learn from other similar parliaments. We should not be so staid that we do not allow change. I was on the Procedure Committee at the time that it recommended the operation of this second chamber, and I think the development of this second chamber has improved the workings of the parliament. I do not mean to diminish the debate in the other chamber, but it has allowed extra opportunities for private members’ business to take place.

I commend the report to the House. I think it is a worthwhile report. We do not need to adopt everything that other parliaments do, because we have our own unique way of doing things in this, our Australian parliament. It is a little bit different. I cannot imagine question time not being robust. I would like it to be more informative. I believe that in the 16 years I have been in this place question time has diminished, and it is the main focus of people’s attention in terms of this parliament and observation of it. This government came to power on the basis that they were going to raise the standards; the reverse has happened in relation to the operation of question time. That is not to say that the opposition should not conduct itself somewhat differently in question time.

I believe that as a parliament we can no longer obtain information from the executive and hold them to account. That has been left to Senate estimates committees. With both chambers now having a government majority, one questions how effective an estimates committee will be. It is incumbent on us as private members and on members of the Procedure Committee to raise these issues. It is not about political advantage, as one day the opposition will be in government and the government will be in opposition. It is about bringing forward reasonable and fair rules that enhance this parliament. My colleagues who took the time to go away together and study these other parliaments have produced a beneficial report on which this parliament can draw. I commend them and I commend the report to the house.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the deputy chair of the Procedure Committee, the honourable member for Banks. He and I share an interest in parliamentary reform. Whilst as Australians we can all be proud of our parliamentary traditions, in Australia and, in particular in this parliament, there is what has been termed a democratic deficit. In other words, the power of the executive over the legislature has increased disproportionately. It is now time to start fighting back.

I was very pleased to be able to utilise my study leave to travel with the Procedure Committee and have a look at some of the other parliaments and how they operate. I was particularly pleased that the Chief Government Whip joined the committee in its travels and hope that, when the Procedure Committee brings down some reports, the whip, having seen other parliaments operating firsthand, will lend his considerable influence and prestige to ensure that some of the report’s recommendations are adopted by the government.

Members of the House of Representatives fundamentally have been elected to keep the government accountable, yet we do not have in this House, by comparison with other parliaments, a proper scrutiny of legislation. It is true, as my colleagues on this side of the House know, that as an opposition we try as best we can to examine and debate the government’s bills. More often than not we are gagged. We cannot say that there is proper committee scrutiny of all bills—and there should be. We are not doing our job on behalf of the people of Australia if we cannot fulfil our first and most fundamental role—that is, the scrutiny of government bills and holding the government accountable.

The lack of accountability in the Australian parliament is an absolute disgrace and we need to address it. I remind honourable members that, when the Howard government was elected to office, it was on the basis of raising parliamentary standards, yet its first act in the parliament was to cut $300,000 out of the parliamentary committees’ budget. The biggest cut to any department was applied to the parliamentary committees. When I was first elected as a member of parliament you could be guaranteed a few things: the head of a department would come and speak to a parliamentary inquiry about the department’s submission; a minister—a Labor minister—would often come along with the head of the department; and a parliamentary committee would have a secretary and research staff. These days you do not even get a nominated secretary. We are setting up to fail one of the best things in this parliament—the parliamentary committees. We are putting enormous stress on those who service the committees.

I would like to say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the big difference between the success or failure of a committee is in its membership. I would never say that the members of a committee have no role to play or no influence but, undoubtedly, the success of a committee goes to the way in which it is supported by way of staff, its research capacity and its ability to deliver a decent report rather than being stressed out by having to look at a number of inquiries and get out a number of committee reports. I fundamentally disagree that these changes have been in the best interests of parliament or parliamentary traditions. We need to start investing back into the parliament.

I say this: if we had proper parliamentary scrutiny of legislation, we would probably have less debating time. We would probably have less debating time because, without a doubt, a lot of the munching and crunching could occur through the parliamentary committee process. It does not happen and if it were to happen tomorrow we would not have the resources to fulfil it—and shame on the government of the day that is running it.

In other parliaments—in the Scottish parliament, in the Welsh parliament and even in Westminster—they actually have a body corporate. There are not only members of the government serving on it but also members of the opposition. In the case of the UK parliament a cabinet minister serves on it. There is never a conflict in the issue of resourcing or investing in democracy in the UK parliament—and certainly not in the Scottish parliament or the Welsh parliament—yet this parliament is being deprived of resources in the most vital areas.

The Procedure Committee has recommended a full-blown estimates procedure for the House of Representatives. That acknowledges, again, that our fundamental role as members of parliament, whether we are on the government side or on the opposition side, is to hold the executive to account. Whilst that has been totally rejected by the Howard government, even if we were to agree to do it tomorrow the committees would not have the resources to undertake it.

The other area I want to comment on is petitions. I have been a petitions sceptic because, under existing standing orders, any minister can put in a response to a petition. There has not been a response for 10 years. From time to time, perhaps inappropriately, I rise and ask the Speaker at the conclusion of the reading of petitions: ‘Have any responses to petitions been received?’ This government has a duck. Never once has it done it. Therefore, I have always been sceptical of establishing a petitions committee. But I commend to honourable members the Scottish parliament, which has a committee which looks at petitions and has the power to compel ministers to attend. In fact, ministers would not think of not attending if they were invited. It brings down reports to the parliament where appropriate. I am in favour of a petitions committee because it is an ancient and proper right.

You would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that for a long time I have had on the Notice Paper a proposition that says that if there have been concerned citizens in your electorate, my electorate or anyone else’s electorate who have collected a petition and are able to travel to Canberra then they should be able to present that petition at the bar of the parliament and read the prayer of the petition. That would be democracy in action. That would be empowering people.

That is one of the problems we have as a parliament—people feel that they cannot influence the parliament, they cannot talk to politicians and that politicians do not listen. We need to look at the way we conduct ourselves, whether it is as individual members, as a committee or as a parliament, so that we can redress that perception. It may be that some ministers believe that that perception out in the community is a good thing but I, for one, feel that most members of parliament want to address that. They care about this institution.

In conclusion, this is a preliminary report of the trip we have undertaken and the Procedure Committee will work its way through the issues that it saw in those parliaments, from the mother parliament, the most recent parliaments and the most ancient parliament—the Tynwald in the Isle of Man—as well as looking at the French system, which also had things to commend it. I ask that all honourable members participate and involve themselves in the work of the committee, as they have been invited to do, and hopefully we can bring down worthwhile recommendations which will correct a democratic deficit that operates here and reverse the disinvestment in democracy that has been the hallmark of the Howard government.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cameron Thompson) adjourned.