Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That unless otherwise ordered, standing orders 192 and 193 be amended to read as follows: 192 Main Committee’s order of business The normal order of business for the Main Committee is set out in figure 4. Figure 4. Main Committee order of business

	MONDAY		TUESDAY		WEDNESDAY		THURSDAY
				9.30 am	3 min constituency statements	9.30 am	3 min constituency statements
				Approx 10.00 am	Government business and/or committee and delegation reports	Approx 10.00 am	Government business and/or committee and delegation reports
						12.30 pm	Adjournment Debate
				Approx 1.00 pm		Approx 1.00 pm
4.00 pm	3 min constituency statements	4.00 pm	3 min constituency statements	4.00 pm	If required
Approx 4.30 pm	Government business and/or committee and delegation reports		If required
Approx 6.40 pm	90 sec statements
6.55 pm	Committee & delegation reports and private Members’ business
				Approx 7.30 pm
8.30 pm	Grievance debate	Approx 8.30 pm
9.30 pm.

The meeting times of the Main Committee are fixed by the Deputy Speaker and are subject to change. Adjournment debates can occur on days other than Thursdays by agreement between the Whips. 193 Members’ three minute constituency statements The first item of business on any day that the Main Committee meets shall be constituency statements by Members. The Deputy Speaker may call a Member to make a constituency statement for no longer than three minutes. The period for Members’ constituency statements may continue for 30 minutes, irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House.

The amendment provides for an additional two hours and 40 minutes each sitting week on a Monday for members to debate government business or committee reports and to make three-minute constituency statements. It provides two changes to the existing standing orders: that the first item of business on any day that the Main Committee meets will be constituency statements by members and that, between 4.30 pm and 6.40 pm on a Monday, the Main Committee will allow for government business and committee and delegation reports.

This amendment will provide greater opportunity for members to do two things: firstly, to better represent their electorates with the increased allocation of time allowed for constituency statements and, secondly, to contribute to the legislative debate on issues that are important to their local communities. This will, of course, increase the accountability and transparency of the government’s legislation to the parliament, as additional debate will be allowed on legislation. Appropriately, it restores the proper practices to the Main Committee for which it was established.

The government has provided a great deal of opportunity for members of the House of Representatives to support their concerns and views before the House. Indeed, so far in 2009 the Main Committee has sat for a total of 176 hours, which is more than the entire time of 147 hours that it sat for in 2007. In 2008, the Main Committee sat for a total of 290 hours, more time than in any other year since its creation in 1994 and more than 60 hours more than its previous record in 2006.

I take the opportunity to make the point that, while the House of Representatives is engaged in discussion about legislation and also about issues of concern that members have in their electorates, I think the same, unfortunately, cannot always be said of the other place. The House has carried some 119 bills so far this year. There are 21 packages awaiting passage in the Senate. Of those, three are budget related: the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009, the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009 and the Health Insurance Amendment (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Bill 2009. Indeed, last week the Senate only considered four packages, of which three were passed.

Of course the Senate need to give proper scrutiny to legislation, but they also need to recognise that they have a responsibility to deal, in a timely manner, with legislation that is carried by the House of Representatives. Certainly, the Parliamentary Business Committee will continue to monitor the situation re the build-up of legislation in the Senate. It is my understanding that there are a range of bills which the government and the opposition have declared to be non-controversial but because of minor parties opposing that declaration the legislation is unable to be debated on Thursdays.

The fact that the Senate has not extended its sitting hours, unlike the House of Representatives in both this chamber and the Main Committee, is also an issue which needs to be given proper consideration by the Senate. I would certainly ask that they do so.

This is a practical motion which is about maximising the time that both chambers sit. It is also of good financial sense for the parliament to maximise the daytime activity whilst parliamentarians are here in Canberra, given the costs of parliament sitting. I certainly commend the proposed amendments to the House of Representatives and I thank both the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip for their ongoing deliberations on these issues and the cooperative way which, by and large, we operate in this chamber.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition lends support to the government’s changes to the standing orders in order to give parliamentary secretaries and ministers greater opportunities in the Main Committee. It was—when I was a minister and a parliamentary secretary—a vexing matter that you could not necessarily speak on the adjournments or in the Main Committee about issues to do with your local electorate. It seemed rather counterintuitive. We do support the opportunity for ministers and parliamentary secretaries to be able to range across issues that are of importance to their constituents, who make up, at least in my electorate, 98,000 voters and about 130,000 people. I am sure that in the electorates of ministers and parliamentary secretaries they would have similar numbers if not quite so great because South Australia has a higher number on average than most electorates across Australia due to a peculiarity in the Constitution, which we have talked about before. We do support the opportunity for parliamentary secretaries and ministers to be given the chance in the Main Committee to talk about their local electorates.

We also believe the change that would give parliamentary secretaries the opportunity to make statements in the Main Committee, which could then be responded to by shadow ministers, is an improvement to the Main Committee. I can think of other improvements to the Main Committee and to the chamber. I see the Chief Government Whip is in the House. He has been a longstanding advocate of change and reform in terms of the standing orders in both this place and the Main Committee. He and I served as chairman and deputy chairman many years ago of the Procedure Committee, my first very important appointment in this place by the former Prime Minister—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last century.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly, last century indeed. It took a while to get started. We did report, in fact, into the Main Committee and the improvements that could be made, some of which were adopted, so it is good to see the continuing organic improvement in the standing orders. We do always support more opportunities for members to speak. The Main Committee has provided a forum for private members’ business. It is ironic that on a day when the government is suspending private members’ business in the House of Representatives in order to debate the renewable energy targets bills—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We’re not doing that.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not going to do that? That is good news. We are even more pleased to hear about that because we want private members to get more opportunities to debate. That had been the impression that I had been given, so that is good news. We will be able to debate private members’ business today as well as the renewable energy targets bills late into the night. I am pleased that the Leader of the House has confirmed that.

We would like to see other reforms to the standing orders. We would like to see the oft called for claims of the previous opposition about four-minute answers in question time adhered to. It is embarrassing, in fact, for the Leader of the House that, on most of the occasions that he has answered questions, he has transgressed the four-minute rule—51 per cent of the time in 2008 and getting worse in 2009 at 69 per cent of the time. The Minister for Education transgressed her own four-minute rule in 2008, 61 per cent of the time and she is getting worse too, she is up to 66 per cent—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

About five I think. Up to 66 per cent of the time she is transgressing the four-minute rule. It was she who put in a submission to the Procedure Committee inquiry into the standing orders in the last parliament that there should be a four-minute rule. The Treasurer on the other hand, who also supports the four-minute rule, is doing much better. In 2008 he only transgressed it nine per cent of the time and in 2009 he has only transgressed it 22 per cent of the time. The Treasurer is actually doing much better in terms of his own self-imposed four-minute rule than the Minister for Education. If only he would actually answer the questions sensibly, that would be a huge improvement. He has probably answered them in such a short space of time because he does not know the answer and no answers are much shorter than longer answers; nevertheless he is doing better than the Minister for Education and much better than the Leader of the House.

Other ministers also transgressing the rule include the Minister for Finance and Deregulation at 72 per cent of the time in 2008 and 71 per cent of the time in 2009. The Prime Minister transgressed it 27 per cent of the time in 2008 and 34 per cent of the time in 2009, and the list goes on. I think, sadly, the worst offender is the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, who has missed the boat in a few areas but, certainly, he has missed the boat in terms of the four-minute rule. In 2008 he transgressed it 53 per cent of the time and in 2009, 89 per cent of the time. The Leader of the House might like to take him in hand a bit and then the opposition would be able to ensure that democracy is working much more effectively than the farce that question time has become under this government. That said, we support the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

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

I do not wish to detain the House, but I did want to rise and support this motion moved by the Leader of the House, thank him and also thank the opposition for their support. I think increasing the number of speaking opportunities for members is always a good thing for them and, more especially, for their electorates, and I welcome the half hour that is now being provided on Mondays in the Main Committee. I would also observe that we are entrenching the rule that, if a division should interrupt the contribution of members on constituency statements, members will take off where they left off so their opportunity is not wiped out.

I would observe that when the Standing Committee on Procedure review this innovation, which I do hope they will do with some clarity, they might look at whether or not the proposition has been successful—and I am sure they will conclude that it has; whether it is popular with members—and I am sure the answer to that is yes; and, most importantly, whether or not an opportunity exists to perhaps extend it by a further half hour so that we would start sitting Mondays with an hour of constituency statements. But I do not want to prejudge how the procedure committee may deliberate on these matters but merely to hope that they will review these new arrangements, supported as they are by both sides of the House.

Question agreed to.