Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Sturt proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to embrace a parliamentary reform agenda.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

This is a very important matter of public importance for debate today. It comes out of the extraordinary frustration that my colleagues on this side of the House feel, I know that the public feel, and I would be very surprised if members of the Labor Party did not also feel, about the performance of this government in terms of question time and the handling of matters in this House. Mr Speaker, as you said in the House today:

The failure has been of the House not to address the problems that people feel concerned about.

Today I wish to go to some of those problems and to the reform agenda that the opposition has placed on the record. I have written to the Leader of the House and to the Procedure Committee. I would expect a sensible response from the Leader of the House, and I would also expect that the Procedure Committee, which can refer matters to itself, would seriously look at the reform agenda that the opposition has put forward covering matters as far reaching as a backbench question time specifically for backbenchers to ask ministers about issues in their local electorate, a take note session after question time, and of course time limits for answers, which would come as an enormous relief to everybody in the chamber. I think I could even speak for the members of the government—it would come as a great relief to them if there were limits on the Prime Minister in particular. I think they would be popping champagne corks in the caucus if the government actually adopted the opposition’s proposals for reform of the parliamentary system.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They could demand it in the caucus.

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

In fact, I would expect that the caucus will start to push for parliamentary reform given the extraordinary waste of time and effort and energy that goes into what has become a joke of a question time. For two hours every day we have to hear the Prime Minister blathering on in confected outrage in ugly displays like today. It was an extraordinary performance, verballing members of the opposition and telling outright falsehoods about our positions on issues. We have to listen to the Treasurer telling falsehoods about the positions we have taken on bills—bills that we suggested in the first place. I am referring, of course, to the bank guarantee. On four occasions the Leader of the Opposition has had to take personal explanations about the blatant disregard for the truth that the Treasurer displays in this House about a bill which we are on the record as having supported.

The Prime Minister is by far and away the worst offender in terms of his performance in question time. I pity the new members of this chamber having to see the performance of the Prime Minister in comparison to the performance of previous prime ministers. I am not just talking about John Howard, the former member for Bennelong, who most people—even the member for Banks—would agree was quite a parliamentary performer. There were other prime ministers who were great parliamentary performers, and they were not even from my own party.

Paul Keating was a very entertaining parliamentary performer; Bob Hawke was a satisfactory parliamentary performer. Gough Whitlam was a legendary parliamentary performer. On our side of the House there have been prime ministers like Robert Menzies. There have been whole books written about his parliamentary performances and his capacity to speak in this place. Robert Menzies is just one example but Malcolm Fraser of course is another. I have already talked about John Howard.

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

Billy McMahon.

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

While Billy McMahon had good days and bad days, generally speaking Billy McMahon was regarded as quite a parliamentary performer in his own fashion. But unfortunately the Prime Minister of today in this chamber would be rated the worst parliamentary performer in living memory—much worse than Billy McMahon; much worse than Bob Hawke; much worse than Malcolm Fraser. I pity the new members of parliament that they have to put up with this dirge, this turgid display, this uninteresting performance he gives every day which goes for far too long and in which he never says anything of any interest at all. And as far as the public are concerned, I have had an extraordinary deluge of emails, letters and correspondence, along with people raising it with me on the street or through Facebook or other methods, about what a joke question time has become in the national parliament. That is sad, because it is a very important part of the day.

Let me give you some statistics. I know that the Labor Party love to talk about facts. Well, these are the facts. In 2008, only 31 per cent of question time was spent answering questions from the opposition and the Independents. The average time that the government takes to answer questions from the opposition is two minutes and 38 seconds. Yet the average time that the government takes to answer questions from their own backbench is five minutes and 10 seconds. This year, the Prime Minister has set new benchmarks—new lows—on performance in the parliament and for boring the parliament to death. He is called ‘the Bradman of boredom’. He takes an average of seven minutes and 16 seconds to answer a question from his own side. He has broken almost all the records, with an answer to one question in the last sitting fortnight which went for 12 minutes and 30 seconds.

It is not just me who thinks this is boring: it is all of my colleagues, most members of the Labor Party and certainly the members of the press gallery, who have started to be turned off from coming to question time. I also pity the members of the public who travel from all over the country to come to question time in what is supposed to be the most senior and important parliament in the country. The public come here and have to put up with the dirge that the Prime Minister tries to pass off as answers to questions.

The government, when they were in opposition, had quite a different view about the need to reform the parliament. I know that the member for Banks was very keen on the need to reform the parliament, but he was not the only one. Former Labor leader Bill Hayden right back in 1978 moved a motion to introduce a time limit for answers in question time of three minutes.

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

Bill Hayden?

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

Bill Hayden was not the most recent example, I can assure, Leader of the House. The most recent examples include people like Melissa Parke, the member for Fremantle, who has written that imposing time limits on questions and answers would perhaps constrain the tendency for questions and answers to be used for point scoring. Bob McMullan, the member for Fraser, believes that no answer should be longer than four minutes. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, the member for Lalor, argued in opposition to limit answers to questions during question time to four minutes. Wayne Swan, now the Treasurer, the member for Lilley, argued in opposition that time limits should apply. All of these opinions were given in speeches to the chamber, applications to the Procedure Committee and responses to suggestions and all were from the Labor Party.

The Speaker of the House, Mr Jenkins, whom we all revere, has also expressed his belief that it would be helpful if answers were shorter. Even the Clerk of the House, who is usually like the sphinx in terms of expressing a view on any political matter, noted in a submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure during the last parliament that ‘time limits would reduce the risk of more prolonged answers, answers which are more likely to give rise to challenges on the ground of relevance’. And ain’t that the truth.

The reason I am so much at the dispatch box during question time drawing the attention of the House and the Speaker to the question of relevance is because the answers go for so long that there is no doubt that the minister will stray from relevance and their answer will go into the irrelevancies that we have to put up with every day in this chamber. I would most like not to have to be at the dispatch box regularly pointing out the irrelevance of the answers to questions given by the Prime Minister in particular. You can save the chamber and the public from having to put up with me at the dispatch box by simply keeping your answers short and being relevant.

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

We like it.

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

We know that you like to be at the dispatch box because you are a narcissist—there is no doubt about that. But I am not a narcissist.

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

If the member could withdraw, that would be good.

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

‘Narcissist’ is not unparliamentary.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt has the call.

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

Only a person who might be a narcissist would be so sensitive about being called one. The other point that I would like to make is that the opposition has placed on the agenda in writing to the Leader of the House and in writing to the Procedure Committee a program of reform. I would like to outline that in all seriousness as part of this matter of public importance. We propose that time limits should be introduced. We propose a one-minute time limit on questions and a four-minute time limit on answers. Most people would not need much convincing that that would be a very good idea.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bob Katter would.

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

We might have to give Bob Katter, the member for Kennedy, an exception. Otherwise, he would not be able to ever make it.

In terms of the other areas of reform, we have noticed that ministerial statements have burgeoned to such an extent that the matter of public importance debate—except for today—has been pushed further back on the agenda of the day until it is no longer at a relevant time. The matter of public importance is described in The House of Representatives Practice as one of the principle avenues available to private members. In the last term of the previous government there were 12 ministerial statements, taking up less than three hours of parliamentary time. But in the 20 months of the current government there have been 93 ministerial statements, taking up over 37 hours of parliamentary time. And they have been on some of the most important subjects imaginable, including issues like the runway end safety area at Sydney airport and the accessibility of cinemas! I am sure that the accessibility of cinemas and the runway end safety area at Sydney airport could easily have been dealt with through speeches by the ministers, by press releases or any other way that they wished to do so.

But ministerial statements are becoming a tool, which, as the Leader of the House well knows, is the reason there have been so many. There have been 93 in 20 months that have taken up 37 hours of parliamentary time. We know that it is being done deliberately to push the matters of public importance back in the day, so we propose that standing orders be changed to put the matter of public importance immediately after question time.

We also propose that there be new ‘take note’ sessions created in the chamber—not unlike the Senate ‘take note’ sessions—where answers in question time can be remarked upon by private members after question time. So, for half an hour after each question time, private members—three on either side—would be able to speak for five minutes each on answers that they had heard in question time and wished to respond to. For example, a local member might ask a question in question time, as the member for Berowra did yesterday when he asked a question about infrastructure in his electorate. He might then choose to respond to the extremely irrelevant answer from the minister for transport, where he basically simply bellowed hysterically across the chamber. The member for Berowra might want seriously to respond to that after question time in a ‘take note’ session.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I do it now?

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

You would be very welcome to do it but don’t take my time!

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you couldn’t.

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

We also propose that there be the creation of a backbench question session. One of the real problems in opposition is that we only have 10 questions a day, essentially, and most of those questions go to the front bench. They try to make political points and hold the government to account. But it becomes very difficult for backbenchers to represent their electorates on local issues. I am sure that is the case, too, for members of the Labor Party. A backbench question session would be held every day or every couple of days for half an hour or an hour. Ministers would have notice of the question. It would be a question on notice arrangement where, in the morning, those questions were provided to the ministers. The backbench question session would allow for a supplementary question on that local issue to be asked of the minister. That would be good for democracy and good for the parliament and it would include all the private members in the importance of question time every day. I think it would be a very useful change to the standing orders to make sure this place works better.

In summary, humour has been employed in this debate so far—and I am sure the Leader of the House will respond in kind—but parliamentary reform is a serious issue. The opposition has placed on the agenda a number of changes that, if they were serious about what they said in opposition, the government would pursue. I know the Leader of the House will say: ‘This is what you did. You weren’t any good so we’re just doing it back to you.’ I hope that the Labor Party and the Leader of the House will be better than that. I hope that they believe in what they said in opposition about parliamentary reform. Now, with the opportunity they have, they can actually try to follow through on the promises that they made before the election. (Time expired)

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

I am certainly pleased to respond to this matter of public importance, although I note that at a time when the global economic crisis is still having an impact on Australia and on a day when we have introduced the CPRS legislation and had a debate about the future of telecommunications and broadband, the opposition are reduced to moving MPIs about the processes in this parliament. Nothing could typify more the fact that they are all about an inward focus—about themselves—rather than about what interests the community out there.

Indeed, the Manager of Opposition Business has a very short memory. Let us have a look at the issues that he raises. The first thing is that he says that parliamentary question time is partisan. Well, you would think that! During the 12 years in which I sat on the other side of the chamber I recall ministers who sat on this side of the chamber accusing us of being un-Australian, accusing us of not supporting our troops in Iraq and accusing us of supporting terrorists coming to this country—accusing us of the worst imaginable things that they could think of, day after day, as they stood up in this chamber.

What do they propose? The first issue that the member for Sturt has raised is question time reform and time limits. To back that up, one of the arguments that he used was the relative amounts of time spent on questions from government members and questions from opposition members. In fact, if the member for Sturt had done his homework he would have found that this side of the House—the current government—actually spends more time on opposition questions as a percentage than the former government did. The former government spent 28 per cent of its time on opposition questions. Indeed, time after time their strategy was to stand up and give one-word answers to questions from the opposition. So it simply does not stack up.

Indeed, a prominent parliamentarian said this about time limits.

… to accommodate all of the challenges that the new membership of this place brings, it is much better to have a flexible and cooperative approach to allowing members to speak rather than having a prescriptive and restrictive set of rules which inhibit the capacity of the house … to act responsibly and maturely in managing its own affairs.

The person who said that was Philip Davis, the Liberal Party leader in the Legislative Council in Victoria. When the non-government members got the numbers for a majority in the Legislative Council in Victoria over the last couple of years they actually abolished time limits. Time limits were there but they abolished them. They say one thing but when they have an opportunity they do the precise opposite.

They also put forward a number of other reforms to the Standing Committee on Procedure but they do not take any responsibility for their own actions. Today, we have seen yet another suspension of standing orders during question time, to have a motion without any momentum whatsoever, without any focus, just ‘It’s Thursday, we’ll move a suspension’. That is what happens every Thursday in this place. It is so predictable and it occurs constantly.

One of the issues raised by the Manager of Opposition Business is ministerial statements. That is a reform that has been taken seriously by this government because we believe it is appropriate that ministers be accountable in this place and that we make announcements in the House of Representatives. We have had 100 ministerial statements during this term and nine prime ministerial statements on major issues such as defence and the major updates that will occur every year about closing the gap with Indigenous Australians. The making of these major statements in this chamber is all about treating the parliament with respect. Of course there is equal time for shadow ministers to respond. This is an important part of the parliament, in which both sides get to put their views, and it is a reform that has been adopted. But those opposite—having argued that it should happen—are now arguing against it.

We have also changed the way in which this parliament works by raising its respect. The most important thing we have done is to acknowledge, for the first time in our history, that this is Aboriginal land. For the first time in our history we have had a Welcome to Country—something that I think all members of the House of Representatives now support and all members participate in. One of the issues being considered by the Procedure Committee is how we can enhance the opening of parliament so that we acknowledge the fact that history did not begin on this land when Federation occurred; that we have a history that goes back tens of thousands of years. That is a vital and important reform advanced by this government—belatedly, but it has happened.

We have established the Petitions Committee to ensure that millions of Australians now get their voices heard. Previously, petitions were tabled and they went downstairs, somewhere, never to be seen again. No minister responded to what constituents were saying out there. We have enhanced the process. Between 2004 and 2007 more than one million people signed over 900 petitions but there was no response whatsoever. It is an important reform.

We have acknowledged the fact that the parliament is changing. We are not where we should be yet but we do have increased representation of women, particularly younger women. Proxy votes for nursing mothers is an important reform that both sides of the chamber have supported, acknowledging that we can move forward as a modern day institution.

All of these issues have been important, but perhaps the most extraordinary statement by the Manager of Opposition Business is the purported concern for increasing the backbencher role in this parliament. We advanced the most important reform that could have happened, and that was the Friday sittings. The Friday sittings gave an opportunity for backbench members to discuss issues of concern to their constituents and issues of concern to the nation. Private members’ bills have been used more by opposition members than by government members. There were many people—government members of long standing who had experience in governments past and present—who thought that we were providing an opportunity to the opposition that was extremely generous.

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

Mr Melham interjecting

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

The member for Banks puts himself on the record as one of them. He said the opposition could take advantage of that. It was a day when there was focus on what members of parliament—not ministers—did and they operated in exactly the same way as the Main Committee does. We do not have divisions or quorums in the Main Committee and it has operated successfully, exactly the same way, with the Monday and Tuesday meetings. But those opposite chose to destroy and wreck that opportunity for backbench members. Backbench time occurs in other parliaments. For example, New South Wales sits on Friday. Backbench members have an opportunity to raise issues of concern to their electorate but, here, they decided to trash it. They did so in a way that was extraordinarily disrespectful to the Prime Minister, by bringing in a cardboard cut-out of the Prime Minister—and they think that is pretty funny.

We would never have brought a cardboard cut-out of John Howard into this parliament. We would never have done that. They still do not seem to understand that the Prime Minister is not a backbencher. This was a specific opportunity. It was a reform for backbench members. It is one that I supported strongly. It is one, as the member for Banks has said, that was not unanimously supported by those on this side of the House because many members thought that an opportunity was being given to the opposition that we were not given over that previous period of time. Think about, for example, the opportunity at the end of budget week. You have the budget on the Tuesday night and on the Friday you would have private members’ motions and eight speakers in the grievance debate having 10 minutes each to give a critique of what they thought of the budget without a focus on what ministers were doing. This was a real opportunity for reform that they blew. I think that the smart ones amongst them, by the way, Manager of Opposition Business, have certainly recognised that was an opportunity lost. Many members on your side have said that they regret the fact that they did not take a constructive opportunity in terms of parliamentary sitting.

But of course opposition and behavioural problems is something that has characterised those opposite, because when they are essentially not able to put forward an argument about something—and they cannot because they do not know what their position is on the CPRS, they do not know what their position is on asylum seekers and what they will be doing there and they do not know what their position is on economic stimulus—and they cannot put forward a position, they end up having an argument about nothing because they do not stand for anything. That is why, extraordinarily, we have now seen over 1,200 points of order moved by those opposite. The Manager of Opposition Business has well over 200 points of order. The former Manager of Opposition Business is also over 200. The Leader of the Opposition, someone who is supposed to be engaged in high policy debates, has moved over 100 points of order during that time. The comparison is extraordinary: it took them half the time to move more points of order than were moved during the entire term last time. Those opposite interrupt one-third of questions. Then they stand up and move suspensions and censures. Remember Utegate week? They did not move anything on the Monday and they waited until the Wednesday, when we knew it was a fake email, and then moved a censure motion. That was a highlight of the tactical geniuses opposite. The fact is that they have no issues of substance to be able to advance. They have moved more suspensions, more points of order, more dissents from the Speaker than were moved—(Time expired)

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important matter in this matters of public importance debate. I note that the purpose of this parliament is to hold the government to account. The purpose of this parliament is to govern well for the benefit of the people of Australia. It is interesting to note that the Leader of the House talked about the importance of Friday sittings, a day on which the Prime Minister was not going to bother to turn up, a day for which the taxpayers were paying to keep this parliament functioning yet at the same time we were not going to have a question time. We were not going to have a questioning of the executive. We were going to have nothing more than a Clayton’s parliament. It is absolutely outrageous that the Leader of the House would suggest that the taxpayers of this country pay to keep this parliament open when there was no ability to hold this government to account.

The government tries to achieve a very similar situation in question time by, effectively, constantly filibustering. Rather than providing decisive answers to questions and rather than being concise, we have the Prime Minister filibustering for virtually hours in question time. In fact, I think he could be renamed ‘Stilnox’ for his incredible power to send not only the members of this House but perhaps half of the nation to sleep with his dreary, dull and irrelevant performances in question time. The subject of relevance is very important and the deficiency of the standing orders in relation to question time is made clear by the performance of the Prime Minister and his senior ministers in this place. It certainly does detract from the ability of the parliament to hold the government to account and to seek important answers to questions on important issues that the public of Australia—and this parliament—has a right to know.

On the issue of asylum seekers, we have seen the government ducking and weaving and avoiding answering the proper and appropriate questions that have been put forward by this opposition. The government is intent on maintaining a situation whereby it can continue to do that. It is absolutely important that parliament evolve over time. It is absolutely important that the parliament have the ability to probe the goings-on within the executive, however murky they might be. But it seems clear that this government is going to stand and defend its right to filibuster, that it is going to stand and defend its right to be perpetually irrelevant and that it is going to stand and defend its right to avoid the very proper scrutiny that should be occurring in this House. The Prime Minister can run but he cannot hide from the Australian people for much longer because I think they are growing wise to the fact that his performance—and the performance of his ministers—in question time is nothing more than a filibuster and wasting the time of this parliament and wasting the time of the Australian people. They should be answering correctly and properly the questions that are being put forward by this opposition. They should be hearing the voice of the Australian people, who are calling for accountability by this government and for answers on important questions about subjects such as asylum seekers. They are wanting to know how wisely their taxpayer dollars are being spent. They are wanting to know what is going on in relation to the control of our borders and the ways in which this government should be discharging its obligation to defend our coastline, an obligation on which those opposite are sadly letting the Australian people down.

Debate interrupted.