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

The honourable member for Hinkler is in the chamber. I welcome that but he is replacing the Chair of the Procedure Committee, Margaret May, the member for McPherson. I have never made a secret of how much I appreciate and value the way in which she conducts the committee. This is not a new matter—encouraging an interactive chamber. I suppose we had an example already of how interventions can work in the Main Committee. I think we have probably got a Wednesday morning record up, but it is good. I think it is valuable and I think it encourages people to be able to talk extemporaneously, as Paul Keating would say. When I say it is not a new matter, this was a proposal initiated by former Speaker Andrew for two reasons: one, he was concerned about the fact that other than at question time or when the leader and Prime Minister may be speaking in the House, we are bereft of members in the chambers—in the House or in this Main Committee chamber.

I hasten to put it on the public record, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know only too well, that members are very, very busy when parliament is sitting. They are doing a whole host of things other than just making a speaking contribution in either chamber. In fact, with fewer sitting days we seem to have expanded what we do here, whether it be parliamentary or party business, and we are all trying to cram it into fewer hours and fewer sitting days. But it is a legitimate concern and one remarked upon by the public. The former Speaker’s idea of having more people in the chamber was that, if it were interactive, more people might come in to listen to speeches and genuinely want to ask questions.

That proposal by the former Speaker and endorsed by the Procedure Committee was in the event blocked by the now minister for roads and local government in his capacity as Chief Government Whip. I am not trying to verbal the member or minister, but he obviously must have had some very deep reservations about the proposal that members should, in second reading speeches, give a 15-minute speech and then take questions at the end of it. I have always been in favour of it. I am always in favour of a more free-flowing chamber, the ability for cross-chamber engagement, can I say. It will be interesting to see whether this proposal will be endorsed—whether or not we will see the leader of the government coming in and making a change to the standing orders that would facilitate such a change in the House. There is some irony of course that we are talking in the Main Committee about changes in the House. That is going to offend some traditionalists.

Whilst I am supportive of this report, I have come to the very strong view that more significant reform would produce much better public debate in the House and in the Main Committee. The one thing that we, as members of the House, fail to achieve is proper scrutiny of bills. I do not mean that there are not some very motivated and interested members who get right into the detail of a particular bill but that it is not our way to scrutinise legislation in detail—that is, the clauses, the paragraphs and the schedules. We are not set up to do that. There are some committees—and the legal and constitutional affairs committee is one example—where a bill will be referred for detailed consideration. But the norm is that bills are not referred to committees. That is the norm, not the exception. I believe that, if we want better debating in the chambers, we need to bolster the committee system so that it will be the exception for a bill not to be referred to a committee. In referring a bill to a committee, it should not be for the committee to produce a report with a number of recommendations but rather that its consideration of a bill is in such detail that it proposes amendments to the legislation that reflect its views.

The most important aspect of this system is that it gives the public an opportunity to make submissions to the committee. Members who are not on the committee can also make suggestions or even submit amendments, should they so desire. A bill would be introduced into the House, there would be the second reading speech, the shadow minister would speak in reply to it and then the bill would be referred to a committee. In my view, we cannot do that at the moment because the budgets and staffing of the committees have changed radically over the last 11 years. The staffing and budgets of our House committees have not been subjected to any review whatsoever by the House. This seems to be somewhat of an anomaly. Whatever the cost, it would be an investment in better democracy. I think it is something that we should be encouraging.

If a bill has been properly digested and altered and then debated in the House, we would have what I think former Speaker Andrew might have wanted originally—that is, a less formalised debate about a bill, with members having the knowledge and satisfaction that a committee has consulted with the public, experts and those who will be directly or indirectly affected by the legislation and that the committee has done its homework. This would encourage a far more bipartisan approach in the parliament.

We all know that there are occasions when the parliament works very well in the national interest—and I think that should be encouraged—but it mostly occurs in things like committee work. However, I regret to say that, like anything, there can be exceptions with committees being very partisan. I do not think we should get hung up about that. Wherever we can ask members of the House—whether they are in the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or the National Party or whether they are Independents—to work cooperatively together in the national interest, it is good for the people of Australia.

The government should ignore these recommendations at its peril. We are, as an institution, like any other institution, in need of hanging on to our core values but also of changing and adapting to the needs of our time. I think members of the public have high aspirations of how they want their members of parliament to act; but, unfortunately, they also have low expectations sometimes of how their members need to act. It is a safer and better democracy when some of the power of the executive is tempered. We have a robust parliamentary system that is able to absorb and accommodate a government’s agenda, especially when we do it in a way that gives people confidence that the legislation we are offering is, in fact, sound legislation.

I do not think I am on my own when I admit that all too often in the House we have voted for and passed legislation on the basis that there may be some Senate committee that will properly examine what the precise and perhaps unexpected impacts of a bill might be. I do not want to diminish the work of the other place but I do want to reiterate that the most fundamental duty of any member of parliament is to hold a government accountable for its legislation, for the bills that it is putting through. That is a responsibility that members of a government backbench have, as well as an opposition. Clearly that is not being done now and we need to change.

This is a unanimous committee recommendation by the Procedure Committee. I believe it ought to be picked up by the government as another enhancement of the way we do business in the parliament. There are safety mechanisms in it. The safety mechanisms are that at the beginning of their speech members, if they are of a mind, can indicate that they will not take a question, and at the end of their 15 minutes, at the beginning of their five minutes of question time, they can indicate there that they will not take questions. It is important that we do develop parliamentary skills such that all members at some point in time will feel confident about responding to questions from another member.

The reservations people had about interventions in this Main Committee were overcome by the provision under the standing orders of the powers of your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, so that if I were intervening and abusing that privilege or that procedure, you could take appropriate action, not least of which is declining to accept any more questions from me or any other further action you deem fit. So there are some protections in the scheme under interventions. Those same protections are replicated in the procedures proposed for the House. It puts more onus on deputy speakers, but I have confidence—and it has been the case in the Main Committee—that they have judiciously used that power when they have thought it appropriate to protect or to uphold the dignity of the place and protect the interests of a member.

I strongly support it. I am hopeful that government members might indicate if and when this will be picked up, but we will just have to wait and see. We are very close to a federal election, some seven months away, so perhaps any inclination to want to accept the recommendation may in fact fall upon that looming battle.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the recommendations that are contained in the report that has been put together by the Procedure Committee. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the committee members—not only the Chief Opposition Whip, the member for Chifley, who is a member, but also the member for McPherson, who was here earlier, and other members of the committee. The member for Cowper has now arrived; I know he is a member of the Procedure Committee. Those members have put together a set of practical recommendations about the way in which we can improve the parliament.

I think it is fair to say that this report has come off the back of recommendations made by a former Speaker. Unfortunately, as the Chief Opposition Whip has indicated, those recommendations were not acceded to by the government, and that may well have been because the Chief Government Whip at the time did not want to see changes to the chamber. But I think it is now time for the government to seriously consider further changes in the way in which we do business in this place, particularly in light of the way in which the changes that have occurred in the Main Committee have led to a better and more interactive process.

In fact, I think that was clearly exemplified today when the Chief Opposition Whip asked a question of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. The minister acceded to that request and went on to answer the question. That was then followed by the shadow minister returning to the Main Committee and asking questions of the minister, who was summing up the legislation. In that short period, to be quite frank, we heard more and realised more about the legislation than we ordinarily would do when all we have to compare are the contributions from each side on a particular bill. That example today underlines the improvements that could be made if the government were to provide the opportunity for members to intervene on speakers in the chamber after 15 minutes of a 20-minute contribution to their speech in the second reading debate.

It is not a radical proposition that is being put by the committee, I hasten to add. Effectively, the committee is saying—and I agree with the conclusions of the committee—that a speaker will first have 15 minutes to articulate their particular view, outlining their opposition to or support for a bill or amendments. Only after that 15 minutes would another member be able to seek the call to intervene and ask a question of that speaker. I think that is quite a decent balance: it ensures that a member is not able to upset a speaker’s contribution for the first 15 minutes but that three-quarters of the way through the allotted time they are able to rise and ask a question of a speaker, and I think it is fair to say that that would add to the debate.

Of course, a speaker can deny the call—that is, refuse to answer the question. Indeed, the recommendation would even allow for a speaker who feels he or she needs the full 20 minutes to say from the outset of the debate that they do not wish to take an intervention. So this is not a radical proposition. The committee recommends that this proposition be trialled for six months, after which time a review would occur to see whether there had been improvements in the way in which we debate matters.

Since the introduction of interventions being allowed in the Main Committee in 2002, there have been improvements in the way in which the Main Committee operates. I cannot see any reason why there would not be further improvements to the chamber. Again, there are qualifications to the intervention, which I would also like to acknowledge. A member would not be able to intervene on a minister who is introducing a bill, which is in consideration of the need for government to outline in detail their reasons for the introduction of a bill. Therefore, a minister or a member acting on behalf of a minister, such as a parliamentary secretary, would not be called upon to answer questions in the introduction of a bill; indeed, a member would not have the opportunity to intervene upon a shadow minister who was speaking subsequent to the minister. But there would be an opportunity for members to intervene on a minister in the summing up of the legislation, which occurred here today. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs was asked questions in his summing up. I think that led to disclosures that the parliament and the public would like to see, and that underlines the improvements to the operation of the chamber.

I know that there were some other considerations. Firstly, I apologise to the committee: I know the committee had asked members to submit views on this particular matter. It is noted that members did not submit propositions on this particular matter, and I think that was unfortunate. I hope the committee or indeed the government do not take the failure of members to respond to this particular matter as an indication that we do not concern ourselves with improving the chamber. I know from speaking to other members that there is solid ground-level support for changes to the system that will improve interaction. Whilst I did not make a submission, having been asked to do so by the chair of the committee by way of letter last year, I thought it only fitting that I rise today to lend my support to the recommendations that have been made. I do not think they are radical propositions. They are subject to review and there is a trial period in place. I would ask the government to seriously consider the proposition because I think it will lead to improvements.

I also understand that the committee considered other propositions, including the reduction in speech time limits. With respect to the reduction of speech time limits, I understand that they compared and contrasted the way in which other chambers around the world operate and it is fair to say that 20 minutes is a significant amount of time allotted for a second reading speech. As I understand it, there are some chambers that have far more limited time available and I think people would quite often say that, in listening to contributions by members, it is not always the case that you need 20 minutes to say what needs to be said; in fact, sometimes 20 minutes only seems to weaken the argument of a particular member. I am sure I am also an offender on occasion; we tend to repeat things that we have said already in the contribution.

I think it is possible to concede that members in this place sometimes debate and repeat matters that need no repetition. That does occur and that may not occur if there were shorter time limits. It is also fair to say that when Abraham Lincoln addressed people as the President on 19 November 1863 at Gettysburg, he only took three minutes and less than 300 words to say what he had to say. Maybe we can learn something from—

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

The main speaker took two hours.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The preceding speaker did take just over two hours, as the Chief Opposition Whip reminds me. Nobody really remembers who the preceding speaker was and nor do they remember what he said. I think that might underline the fact that there are occasions when you do not always need the full 20 minutes. As I understand it, the committee has not chosen to recommend a time reduction.

By involving other members in the last five minutes of a contribution to the debate, this will increase the likelihood of a member being prepared to properly analyse the bill. If a member is speaking on a particular matter and they are wary of the fact that a member may wish to ask them a question on the bill, and particularly in relation to the contribution they are making, they might be a little more careful to read the bill, the Digest and other matters that are relevant to the bill before getting up and saying something. That is likely to be the case if there is an intervention and a question is asked about what they believe and contend in relation to the bill.

That capacity to intervene after 15 minutes would lead to higher quality contributions by members. I am not suggesting that it would always take shape in that regard. I am sure there are members who on occasion will rise to speak and who will not have too much concern about questions that might be asked. Indeed, members may decline a question that is being put to them after the 15-minute period. But it is interesting to note that two-thirds of the questions that have been put to members in the Main Committee since 2002 have been acceded to by the member. Indeed, in the Scottish parliament, which is referred to in the report, equally, approximately two-thirds of members took the question that was put to them and attempted to answer it.

I think the recommendations that have been made should be supported by the government. It is time for the main chamber, the place where the important matters of parliamentary business are undertaken, to have a more interactive dimension and allow for members to interact with the member who is speaking. I think that will encourage the likelihood of more members being present in the chamber during the debate on a particular bill. It is more likely for you to want to be in the chamber to listen to a particular contribution if you feel you have the capacity to respond to assertions made by the member who is on his or her feet. It seems to me that that will be a logical conclusion to altering the procedures of the parliament. So I do support the committee report. I hope that the government heeds and accedes to the recommendations so that we, as members of parliament, as representatives of the people of Australia, have an opportunity to properly engage in debate on the very important matters that come before us.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.

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

Firstly, can I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to members who are here, because the honourable member for Perth, who one might say was the subject of this report, clearly would have been pleased to avail himself of the opportunity to speak to it. But he did wish me to express his appreciation for the work the Procedure Committee has done in relation to this report and to endorse the recommendations made by the committee. He would claim that he has been exonerated by it. I am pleased to put those comments on the public record.

We have a very quaint ceremony when we elect a Speaker. After the process of nomination has been concluded and a ballot, if necessary, is conducted, two members of the House drag the newly elected Speaker to his chair in the House. That tradition is a very ancient one whereby Speakers from time to time would lose their heads, having stood up against the monarchy in disputes between the parliament and the monarchy. I suppose the modern interpretation of that tradition is that the Speaker is always required to defend members of the House against the executive of the day—being, if you like, the present-day incarnation of the monarchy. I feel very strongly about that aspect of the role of the Speaker.

This report came about because of an incident on 10 October 2006. According to the report:

Following question time on 10 October, the member for Perth, Mr S Smith MP, moved a motion to suspend standing and sessional orders to enable him to outline specific differences between an Australian Workplace Agreement and a collective agreement at a worksite. Following closure of Mr Smith—

that is, a gag motion was moved and carried, preventing him from speaking—

and the seconder, the motion was ruled out of order as the written motion provided was substantially different from the terms read out by the Member in seeking to move the motion.

I have no comment to make about that, but what precipitated the report was the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations moving:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the House from condemning forthwith the Member for Perth.

And then of course a vote was taken.

A number of issues are involved here. One is the tradition of the House and, more specifically, contained in the standing orders of not condemning a member except by way of a substantive motion that admits a distinct vote of the House. So my first point—and I think this is the point the committee report makes—is that, were we voting to suspend the standing orders or were we voting to condemn the member? Were some people in favour of suspending the standing orders but not condemning the member? My strong view is that this motion was out of order. It performed gymnastics with the standing orders and should have been ruled out of order.

If this motion had been carried then you would have expected, as undesirable as it is, a follow-on substantive motion detailing what the charges were. This is another grave charge. The member was condemned because the motion was carried but the charges were not outlined. The basis for the condemnation was not outlined. These are things that we need to strenuously avoid in the future. Whether they involve a Labor Party member, a National Party member or a Liberal Party member does not matter to me. It is the principle that I think is so important here.

In saying that I believe it was out of order I need to say that there was a dissent motion moved and the Speaker’s ruling was upheld. So, if you like, in terms of the record of the House, the ruling was correct, but I beg to differ. I strongly disagree with the rolling in of these two motions.

I have a great deal of regard and respect for the Clerk—and I do not think I am on my own in expressing that view—but I do very strongly disagree not with the recommendations of his submission, which have ultimately been picked up, but with the other examples that the Clerk gave that I think are completely different. It is true that the opposition have moved to suspend the standing orders a lot. The motions never get carried, but we move to suspend the standing orders to call on ministers to take action, produce records or whatever. These are in the Clerk’s submission. None of those motions actually ask the House to make a judgement about those matters. They were not asking you to make a judgement; they were actually calling for action.

That is where I disagree with the Clerk. I will quote from 2.24 in the report, which refers to examples of opposition suspensions. It states:

In none of the cases cited in the Clerk’s submission is the House asked to judge the action of the subject of the suspension motion in the same terms as that of the 10 October motion – in no case was a motion of condemnation proposed or passed.

Happily, I hope that this report’s recommendation to split motions will make sure this never arises, but again I place on record my distaste for the Olympian gymnastics of the standing orders that allowed this motion in the first place to be moved and then to stand.

It is true that we also move censure motions. If a censure motion is accepted by the government—and most frequently it is not—we move straight into it. However, when a censure motion is not accepted by the government, we move a suspension of standing orders, which outlines the reasons for the censure, and then argue why a censure motion should be permitted. Again, on party lines, a vote is taken and nothing ever comes of it. In my view, there is no parallel there with this issue. This issue was very different. It was a suspension and a condemnation in one motion. It was carried by the House. It left the member unable to defend himself procedurally; but, more importantly, it left him not knowing the specifics of where he had gone wrong.

I hope we will never see the need for a member to be condemned. However, should that need arise, we need to make sure that there is procedural fairness not only in knowing what the charge is but also in allowing that member to defend himself against that charge. That did not occur. As I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, with great respect to you and other members of the Speaker’s panel—the Speaker and the deputy speakers—you have a responsibility to protect all members in this place, in particular against the executive. That is your traditional role. It is not to favour one against the other but to ensure that the power that the executive wields in this parliament does not result in abuse of ordinary members of this place. I think the power of the executive has grown out of proportion; I think it is too great. I think they dominate the parliament too much. In saying that, it is not a criticism of you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or your peers. But we do need to make some changes.

Had this been allowed to stand, it would have become one of the unhappiest of precedents. I just say to the Leader of the House: these things have happened. However, I think the way in which the matter was allowed to be referred to the Procedure Committee was very appropriate. I think the Procedure Committee has done a good job in examining the evidence and, in a very carefully worded report, in bringing down recommendations to ensure that there will never be a repeat of this—if the government picks up the report’s recommendations and changes the standing orders in line with those recommendations.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.