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

by leave—I move:

That the House amend the notice relating to the amendment of standing orders 1, 2, 29, 31, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 54, 55, 86, 100, 104, 108, 132, 133, 141, 143, 192, 192b, 215, 222, 229 and 232; deletion of standing orders 41a and 192a; and insertion of new standing order 222a as follows:

Due to technical issues the standing orders will be loaded for the Official

This is a great day for parliamentary reform in this chamber. On this day we have very broad agreement, with a possible couple of exceptions, to begin down the road of parliamentary reform. These changes reflect the Agreement for a Better Parliament: Parliamentary Reform, as agreed by the Leader of the House on behalf of the Labor Party, the Manager of Opposition Business on behalf of the coalition and the member for Lyne on behalf of the non-aligned members, and signed on 6 September 2010.

Components of the changes also go to agreements reached between the government and the member for Denison and the government and the Australian Greens. Drafts of these amendments were provided to the opposition and non-aligned members on Saturday, and since then we have been engaged in discussion to ensure that there is as broad as possible agreement for these changes.

The government is committed to reform of the parliament and has a record of defending the rights of independent members to participate fully in parliamentary processes. This package of amendments seeks to make the parliament more accessible to all 150 members of the House of Representatives. It represents a transfer of power and influence in this place from a concentration in the executive, to bring a focus on the contribution that the 150 members of the House of Representatives can make. As an opposition member I moved a private member’s bill to ratify the Kyoto protocol—now done; I moved a private member’s bill to enact superannuation rights for same-sex couples—now done; I moved a private member’s bill to restrict the number of flights into or out of Sydney airport to 80 an hour—now done; and I moved a private member’s bill to allow for an Aviation Noise Ombudsman—now done. I know firsthand the contribution that individual members of parliament can make and I encourage members to take up these opportunities.

Importantly, however, for these changes to work, for the parliament to continue to operate effectively, there also must be cooperation from all 150 members. I said on the day of the group hug that without goodwill it is just a bit of paper. We need to continue to work in a cooperative way and build consensus wherever we can. By all means have differences, but recognise what our responsibilities to the nation are. Goodwill from all members will ensure that this package of reforms makes parliament a better place.

From the outset I would like to thank the member for Lyne for his perseverance and constructive attitude in these matters. He will continue to play a key role in shaping these reforms in practice, giving them the best shot of success and of course also reviewing their effectiveness. As the agreement stipulates, all of these reforms will be reviewed over the course of this five-week sitting period. All House related initiatives are to be subject to informal monitoring by the Procedure Committee, with the committee to hold round table meetings to discuss progress and any necessary refinements to the detail. The committee will present a formal report on the first year of operation of the new arrangements, but in between there should be discussion between the government, the opposition and the crossbenchers about how it works in practice and whether any refinements are needed prior to parliament returning next year. I also note that the trial of questions and answers at the end of speeches is implemented by sessional order only.

The government also acknowledges that there will inevitably be resource implications in developing and sustaining this new framework. Overall, these changes provide for almost quadruple the time allocated to and increased prominence of private members’ business, a more efficient question time with time limits on questions and answers, and better resourcing for and a restructuring of the committee system.

I will go through these changes in detail; however, firstly I want to make clear that not all the reforms contained in the Agreement for a Better Parliament require or indeed are suitable for implementation through the standing orders. These reforms will require development through cooperation and practice. Indeed, one of the contentious issues, the issue of pairing—whether it be pairing of the Speaker or pairing between members—has always been a matter of practice and is not reflected in standing orders. We believe that it is unfortunate that the opposition walked away from the commitment they signed up to, which was that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker be paired in this House. That would have avoided some of the contentious issues regarding the election of the Speaker’s panel that had developed over recent weeks and was designed to ensure there was no political advantage, whoever held onto those positions. And it was quite clear that the Solicitor-General’s advice indicated that there was no constitutional impediment to that occurring, just a political impediment once the opposition realised that they were not going to be in a position to form the government.

I would like briefly to run through some of the aspects of practice to put on the record the government’s commitment, including a commitment to undertake all necessary consultations and processes to ensure these changes are implemented. The government is committed to the implementation, through agreement and practice, of: pairing arrangements—items 2 and 17 of the agreement; the proportionate allocation for non-aligned members of opportunities to speak or ask questions—items 4.6 and 5.3; the imposition of 10-minute time limits on ordinary ministerial statements—item 9.1; the use of extensive notes by members—item 4.9; and the allocation of additional time for consideration in detail—item 11.2.

In relation to committee restructuring, the government is also committed to the development of the role of the Liaison Committee of Chairs and Deputy Chairs—items 10.3 and 16.3. An external review of staffing in the House of Representatives committee office will be commissioned by the Department of the House of Representatives—item 16.2. Similarly, it is appropriate that members of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests work with their counterparts in the other place on the development of a draft code of conduct—item 19. The government is also committed to thereafter appointing an integrity commissioner—item 18.

Other matters will be given effect to by actions within government, in consultation as necessary, such as additional sitting weeks—item 15; electoral funding and truth in political advertising—item 22; and the establishment of a register of lobbyists. I note, though, that the additional sitting week issue has been brought through in spirit by the fact that this parliament has been resumed so quickly after the government being formed and that we will have five full sitting weeks in the latter part of 2010.

An external review of staffing levels in the Parliamentary Library, item 16.2, will be a matter for the President of the Senate, as well as for the Speaker. A review will be undertaken in conjunction with implementation of the government’s commitment to establish a parliamentary budget office, item 16.1. I reiterate the government’s commitment to the agreement with the Australian Greens that there be a dedicated time for debating and voting on private members’ bills and that the House of Representatives will debate private senators’ bills within six sitting days and then bring them to conclusion.

The government is also committed to facilitating votes on motions from Independents and minor-party members and ensuring that Independent and minor-party members receive a fixed and fair allocation of questions in each question time. I have spoken with the member for Melbourne and with Senator Bob Brown and I confirm our commitment to this. The government signed up to these reforms through the agreement. The government stands by that commitment.

I now turn to those items of the agreement which require standing order amendments. The first main area of reform is around the order of business of the House and the Main Committee, primarily to increase the time allocated to and prominence of private members’ business. Private members’ business, including committee and delegation reports, will be given priority on a Monday from 10 am to noon, commencing with the Petitions Committee report and statements for 10 minutes. A further period of committee and delegation business and private members’ business will be given priority in the chamber on a Monday from 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm. The selection committee will give priority to members from regional and rural electorates to deal with their motions and private members’ bills in the chamber during this period.

The Main Committee will regularly meet on Mondays from 10.30 am to 1.30 pm, commencing with a 30-minute period of three-minute constituency statements, as provided by standing order 193, followed by committee and delegation reports and private members’ business being given priority.

These amendments mean that an additional 6½ hours will be dedicated to private members’ business, bringing the total time allocated to nine hours. Four of these nine hours will occur in the main chamber. This is almost a quadrupling of time allocated to private members’ business and, in addition, votes on private members’ bills and motions will be held during government time. Further, members will be allocated 10 minutes—up from five minutes—when first presenting their bill to the House during private members’ business. A selection committee, chaired by the Speaker, will be established to determine the priorities and times for items of private members’ business and the times for individual speakers. This is one of the issues which have been dealt with by the draft standing orders being provided to the opposition and the crossbenchers. As a result of that, we have changed the provisions so that there will be an additional non-government member from the opposition, an additional government member and an additional member of the cross benches, so that two representatives from the cross benches will participate formally in the selection committee.

The Selection of Bills Committee, historically operated in the last parliament by the Chief Government Whip, Roger Price, and Chief Opposition Whip, Alex Somlyay, worked by consensus. I am sure that the new selection committee will operate in just the same way. The committee will also recommend which items will be voted on. In consultation with the Leader of the House, these items may then be allocated government business time for the remaining stages and the votes.

There are also a number of other amendments that again increase opportunities for members to raise in the House issues of concern to their electorate. Ninety-second statements will now take place prior to question time from 1.45 pm on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. If members do not take up the opportunities, the extent of that availability might be a matter for review for next year—that is something which I and the Manager of Opposition Business agree might occur. Given that it is in the agreement, we have agreed to move forward in that way. This will provide 30 members with an opportunity to make a 90-second statement in the House each week. It will triple the number of statements by providing members with 20 additional statements per week, all of which will now occur in the House main chamber rather than in the Main Committee.

The adjournment debate will also be extended to an hour on Mondays and Tuesdays. This extension of time will provide an additional 12 members with five-minute speaking opportunities each week, bringing the total number of speaking opportunities on the adjournment debate to 36.

The matters of public importance debate will be extended to one hour and 30 minutes, although that time does not all have to be filled. The government and the opposition have agreed that we will provide three speakers each on MPI debates. This change allows for members of the cross benches, should they wish to participate in MPI debates, to participate without restriction because the change in the standing orders provides 1½ hours. To ensure the MPI debate has greater prominence, it will now immediately follow question time.

Overall, these changes provide an additional four hours and 45 minutes in the House and three hours and 25 minutes in Main Committee dedicated solely to providing private members with speaking opportunities outside of government business time.

The second main area of reform is around question time. Question time is the public face of the parliament and is often the Australian community’s only perception of the workings of parliament. The adversarial nature of question time has thereby contributed to a perception that parliament is purely combative. The government is committed to ensuring that question time portrays a more balanced view of the workings of the parliament. These reforms will limit questions to 45 seconds, standing order 100(f), and answers to four minutes, standing order 104(c). A digital clock will be paused during points of order. Also standing order 104(b) will be amended so that a point of order on relevance can be taken only once with respect to each answer. Part (c) will also be amended to reflect the agreement that an answer must be directly relevant to the question. I also note that the government is committed to question time concluding no later than 3.30 pm. In the normal course of events, there will be around 20 questions each day over time.

The third main area of reform is around the committee system. The government is committed to ensuring the committee system is more effective, efficient and better resourced. The number of general purpose House standing committees will be reduced to nine. Membership will be reduced to seven in most cases and be reflective of the make-up of the House. The maximum number of supplementary members for each general purpose standing committee inquiry will be increased to four, with supplementary members having full participatory rights other than voting rights.

I mentioned earlier that there will be an external review of staffing levels within the Department of the House of Representatives committee office. The need for such a review was also recently recommended by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure and will determine the nature and level of secretariat support necessary for the ongoing inquiry work of committees to ensure that the system is supported by an adequate number of qualified staff.

These amendments also allow the chairpersons of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts and Audit and the Standing Committee on Regional Australia to be a non-government or non-aligned member. Standing order 39 will be amended to provide committee chairs with the opportunity to make short statements during private members’ business time informing the House of inquiries being undertaken by the committee.

The government is also committed to improving response times to committee reports. A resolution of continuing effect is a part of this package of reforms to ensure that within six months of a House or joint committee report being presented in the House a government response will be tabled. If no such response has been received within six months, a statement signed by the relevant minister must be tabled stating the reasons why the response could not be prepared in time. The minister, or minister representing the minister, must also make themselves available to appear before the relevant committee at the next reasonable opportunity to answer questions on that statement.

Finally, I highlight one of the reforms in this package that is not about the technical workings of the House but about ensuring the parliament is more respectful to the traditional owners of the land on which it meets. The election of the government in November 2007 and the subsequent opening of the 42nd Parliament in February 2008 for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth saw a traditional ‘Welcome to Country’ and smoking ceremony performed by Indigenous elders for the opening of the federal parliament.

The government apologised to the stolen generations. On 23 June 2010 the government introduced a historic reform with amendments to the standing orders to ensure the formalisation of the role and place of a traditional ‘Welcome to Country’ in the opening of a new parliament. We did that yesterday in the parliamentary forecourt.

If this package of reforms passes the House, tomorrow will bring another historic event. The day’s proceedings will commence with the Speaker making an acknowledgment of country. Standing order 38 will be amended to include that acknowledgement, which will occur prior to prayers.

I commend the motion to the House. I support these important reforms and thank the members who have participated in the process, particularly once again the member for Lyne for showing leadership on these issues.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, may I congratulate you formally in your first iteration in this House and my first opportunity at the despatch box to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker yesterday.

The coalition obviously supports reform to the standing orders. We initiated attempts to try to reform the standing orders in the last parliament. I will deal with all these reforms, but I will try to keep it brief because I know that there are members who will be giving their first speeches before question time and I am certain that there are members from the crossbenches who would like to speak and also potentially members from the coalition and the government.

We initiated reform in the last parliament. The Leader of the Opposition and I have been longstanding advocates for reform of the parliament. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition proposed a Westminster style independent Speaker as early as the early part of this decade, in early 2001. During the last parliament, I wrote to the Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler, proposing a number of reforms that would have improved question time and the parliament—things like time limits on questions and answers; things like a more New Zealand style question time; and direct relevance from the ministers in answering questions. The Leader of the House rejected out of hand that offer of bipartisan support for parliamentary reform.

The coalition took to the election a proposal for parliamentary reform as one of its election policies. It was announced during the election campaign and the Prime Minister rejected it out of hand, saying the public was not interested in parliamentary reform. After the election, the Leader of the Opposition wrote again to the Prime Minister proposing that a commission be established to examine parliamentary reform, including on it people of such eminence as Ian Harris, the former Clerk of the House of Representatives, and again the Prime Minister rejected such a suggestion out of hand.

The Labor Party has been dragged kicking and screaming to parliamentary reform only because we sit in a parliament where we have a minority government. If it took that to achieve parliamentary reform, at least one good thing would have come from the election. The opposition approaches these draft standing orders from a position of having had a longstanding commitment to support for reform of the standing orders and, putting the politics to one side, we are glad that the emergence of crossbenchers has caused the parliament to have to be reformed in the 43rd Parliament.

We did reach agreement after many, many days of negotiations between the member for Grayndler and me and the member for Lyne, representing the crossbenches, and I think we came up with an excellent set of changes. Everyone had to give way. In some areas the opposition wanted to go further; in other areas the government wanted to give less. The member for Lyne, in some areas, wanted to do more—for example, the opportunity for a backbenchers’ question time was not proceeded with, as much as there seemed to be general support for that. Hopefully, we can revisit that in reviewing the standing orders over the next 12 months.

There were areas where everybody had to compromise, and compromise we did. There are around 20 reforms contained in these draft standing orders which will pass the parliament today. One of those parts, which was to pair the Speaker, we traversed yesterday in this House. It was the coalition’s view and it remains the coalition’s view that pairing the Speaker, who does not have a deliberative vote, was potentially constitutionally unsound. While I will not dwell on it at length today, we did not want to be party to a contrivance which in our view circumvented the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and in doing so potentially placed at risk every piece of legislation, motion or instrument passed by this House and would have created the opportunity for a legal minefield to be taken advantage of by my former profession in the High Court, who would have tried to rule out as invalid legislation passed by this place where the contrivance of pairing the Speaker formed a part. So we did not proceed with that part of the agreement.

But I note today that the government is not proceeding with another part of the agreement, which was the requirement that a recommittal of votes only occur following a successful suspension of standing orders. So if there is blame to be apportioned—which I do not believe there is on the coalition side, as our view is based on constitutionally sound advice—it is really to be shared equally as the government has reneged on that part of the agreement to do with the recommittal of votes, which I will deal with.

The Leader of the House went through in great detail in probably his last 20-minute speech in this House, if we are lucky, all the aspects of the draft standing orders that we have agreed to. I will not touch on them all. There are some that will not be in these draft standing orders, and I would like to put on the record what they are so that the government can be held to the agreement that has been made, if you like, off balance sheet. For example, I would note that the agreement that the Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be a non-government member is not contained in these standing orders because it is dealt with by a separate act of parliament, but we have agreed that that should be the case. I would note that question time finishing at half past three will be a convention of the parliament rather than a part of the standing orders. The Parliamentary Budget Office, which formed a part of the coalition’s policy at the last election, is not contained in the standing orders. There is an agreement between the opposition, the government and the crossbenchers that a Parliamentary Budget Office will be established. It will be linked to the Parliamentary Library. It will provide frank and fearless assessment, analysis and advice to do with budgetary and other matters. The priority for that advice will be given to non-government members. Although it will be open to government members, the priority will be to non-government members because the government obviously has at its disposal the Treasury, the Department of Finance and Deregulation and all the other departments that form the government.

I would note that some matters will be in sessional orders rather than in the standing orders. For example, the trial of questions to members at the end of their speeches, which the member for Lyne was extremely keen on, where five minutes would be allocated after members’ 15 minutes in which they could take questions from members of the House and respond to those, will be contained in sessional orders rather than in standing orders. There will also be matters that are not in these draft standing orders because they are already in the standing orders and simply require reinterpretation by the Speaker—things like supplementary questions. The agreement contains a proposal, which we have obviously all agreed to, that the Leader of the Opposition or his delegate be able to ask a supplementary question once during question time. There is already a provision for supplementary questions in the standing orders and therefore I note that that is part of the agreement that is not part of this draft.

Voting on private members’ bills and motions is already contained in the standing orders but has not been enforced or acted upon in a way that is envisaged by this agreement. That will now be given proper prominence. Private members’ bills and motions from government, opposition and the crossbench will all form part of our 43rd parliament. I think that is a very welcome change. The opportunity for committee chairs to make statements during private members’ business on committee work is already in the standing orders but is envisaged in this agreement to be actually allowed to happen. A proportionate share of questions and MPIs has been the practice in the past and I note that, while not contained in these draft standing orders, we will continue to provide a fair, proportionate share to the crossbench out of the opposition’s allocation of questions and MPIs. In fact, we—the Leader of the House, the member for Lyne and I—have already agreed today that there will technically be more than a proportionate share of questions and MPIs given to the crossbenchers. Time limits on ordinary ministerial statements are already in the standing orders but will now be enforced.

The use of notes was another aspect of the standing orders that the member for Lyne was very keen to discuss. The overuse of notes in answers to questions has been particularly problematic, where a minister simply stands at the dispatch box and reads an answer prepared by his or her department to fill up question time. That will not be tolerated. While it is not in the standing orders, the Speaker has been given clear instructions in writing that he will be able to say to the minister that the intent of the agreement is that notes be used at a minimum and to call a minister to order and encourage the minister not to use an overabundance of notes. There will be additional time for consideration in detail.

In terms of our disagreement with the proposal as put by the government today, we are unhappy that the agreement has not been kept in terms of the requirement to successfully suspend standing orders before a recommittal of a vote. I foreshadow that I will be moving at the end of this contribution an amendment to the draft standing orders.

The agreement very clearly states at section 12:

The Standing Orders be amended so that there may be a recommittal of a vote on the same sitting day when a Member is inadvertently absent following a successful suspension of standing orders after debate.

This caused some discussion during negotiations, and the agreement was reached that, if a member inadvertently missed a vote for whatever reason, there would be a requirement for a recommittal of that vote, which is correct, but that that follow a successful suspension of standing orders. In other words, the parliament would have the opportunity to debate the recommittal of the vote to ensure that there was a proper discipline on the government to ensure that their members are present and voting. We do not want a situation where a government can sloppily manage the House and assume that on any matter and at any time, if they miss a few votes or lose a few votes at a hung parliament, they can simply recommit them.

The opposition wants the opportunity to debate the misadventure and to debate the reason for having a recommittal of the vote. We are moving this amendment to ensure that, regardless of the good word of the Leader of House or of anybody else who says that there will be a debate, we should put it in the standing orders so that everybody knows exactly where they stand.

What this amendment means is that, if a member misses the vote through misadventure, they will indicate to the government that there was a misadventure, the government will come into the House, move a suspension of standing orders and there would then be a 25-minute debate at the end of which there may or may not be a vote. Members of the House should not assume that the opposition would oppose such a suspension of standing orders. If there had been a genuine misadventure, why would we oppose a suspension of standing orders? If a member missed a vote for whatever reason and it was a good reason, the opposition would be very unlikely to divide and vote against a suspension of standing orders. That suspension of standing orders would occur, the standing orders would be suspended, the vote would be held again and the vote would then, obviously, include the member who had missed because of misadventure. It is important that the House get the opportunity to put that discipline on a government, whether it is a coalition government or the member for Grayndler’s government. It is important that there be the discipline on the government to keep its act together.

This government sought a commission to form a government. They were successful in doing so and enough of the crossbenchers decided to support them. That is the decision that they have made, and now the government have to make it work. The parliament has a right to debate whether a vote should be recommitted and then have that recommittal. If the government have a good reason to recommit, they will not have any reason to assume that the opposition would always vote against them. In fact more than likely we would not. But by putting into the standing orders that a suspension of standing orders is required it does put that discipline on the government.

By leave I move the amendment:

(1)

Proposed standing order 132, “New division in case of confusion, error or misadventure”,Omit paragraph (b), substitute:

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

I thank the honourable member for Sturt. Is the amendment seconded?

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

I second the amendment, and put on record my concurrence with the general thrust of the changes to the standing orders that are being proposed and the fact that they will result in a better parliament. But I do have a concern in relation to the issue of the recommittal of a vote and I think it is something that we should not be doing lightly. I think it is appropriate that standing orders be suspended before a decision is made on the recommittal of a vote.

It is incumbent on all of us in this House to do our very best and to attend all votes wherever possible. The failure to have a provision where standing orders would need to be suspended certainly does lower that obligation. It gives a perception that there should, perhaps, be some lower standard on members of this House. We should be striving to put the maximum possible pressure on all members of this House to fulfil their obligations to represent their electorates in a vote. When there is a recommittal it should only be after a proper debate on the suspension of standing orders.

With regard to the general thrust, as I have said, I certainly support it. The ability of this House to more properly get information from the government in question time is something that certainly will be welcomed by not only the members of this House but also the wider community. For too long we have seen the processes of question time frustrated by long, unwieldy and irrelevant answers to questions that are quite properly asked by the members of the opposition. These changes will certainly result in a better question time and a question time that betters services the people of this country as well as the House. I am pleased to be able to second this amendment.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the spirit of the new paradigm it is my understanding that my participation in this debate will not affect my first speech, which is to be given tomorrow. I participate on that basis. Much has been made of the agreement reached with other members of the crossbench, but there was in fact a prior agreement reached between me and other members of the Australian Greens and the Labor Party that contained a number of matters relevant to the current debate, including this question of the recommittal of any vote.

As reflected in that agreement, which says, ‘Amending the standing orders of both houses so that there can be a recommittal of any vote within one sitting day where a member was absent from that vote due to inadvertence’, it was our intention in entering into that agreement that it be reflected in the standing orders the spirit that the true will of this House is represented at any given time. As happens in the Senate, the recommittal of a vote as a result of misadventure is more or less automatic. Especially in a House as finely balanced as this one, there ought to be the minimum procedural impediments in place to allow the recommittal of a vote as a result of misadventure.

The true purpose, as it appears to me, of the amendment put by the opposition is to simply have a higher bar and to increase the number of procedural impediments in place for testing the true will of the House. So the Australian Greens do support, in general, the amendments to the standing orders but cannot support the amendment to the standing order with respect to inadvertence.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, I also take the opportunity to welcome you to the chair in your new role in what will be a challenging parliament. There is in this parliament a starting point for three years of good work, such as we have never had before. Before we even get into parliamentary reform, when all members of parliament consider the PEFO documents, the pre-election financials, and the costings which the three Independents in their negotiations over the last 30-odd days were able to access with some changes to the caretaker conventions and which are now in the public domain—as well as both the red book and the blue book now being available in the public domain—we have a starting point for Australian public policy such as we have never had before. I think this is a reflection of a parliament that is strong and that can deliver if it wants to deliver.

In the negotiations that have taken place over the past month there has been a spirit of goodwill and some good work done by all with regard to the Agreement for a better parliament, and that is now reflected in some proposed changes to the standing orders today. I thank all of those people who have been involved in that process. I think it does matter for the future of this parliament and the future of this country. At times it does feel like a theoretical and dry debate, and for many it might even be a boring debate, but I want to use my time to emphasise that this does matter alongside the PEFO, alongside the costings and alongside the red and the blue books. It will allow us to deliver a more productive Australia through the work we do in this parliament.

It matters, firstly, with regard to empowering local members to engage with their communities in a way where issues at the community level can be brought to this parliament and where the desire of one individual member, along with 75 others in whatever form they may take, can affect policy outcomes. That is a big step in the traditions of Australian public policy that we should welcome strongly. The foundation block of Australian public policy is that 150 of us have been legitimately elected by our communities. We should not then come down here and lose our voices to an executive. We should all be empowered, regardless of political persuasion, to have skin in the game and affect policy outcomes and, if we can, to compromise and negotiate with our colleagues in this parliament. We saw that yesterday. The floor of the House should matter, and on day one it did matter; I would hope that over the next three years it will matter. That will see us engaging the community and, therefore, engaging in a public policy debate in a way we have not seen before but a way in which I would hope there will be agreement and will make us stronger.

Therefore, the private members’ bills are an important part of the reform document picked up by both sides. That is one I think we all need to watch. The selection committee has a very important role in this reform process and that cannot be an exercise in blocking private members’ rights. It needs to be an exercise in empowering private members’ rights. That is a space in this reform process that I hope all members, regardless of their politics, regardless of whether they are in government or in opposition, watch closely. If this reform is to work there will be a need for government to deal with the uncomfortable at times. Regardless of what private members may bring in in a legitimate way, based on their reading of their community, the executive and the selection committee cannot be a blocking exercise to that process.

We have agreements with government, and I appreciate that, but the spirit and intent of private members’ bills is that they will be voted on, regardless of their content. I flag that as the one to watch. For example, if later today wild rivers legislation comes in on behalf of the coalition or an individual brings in ‘strangle all cats’ legislation, this parliament should have the strength of character to deal with the uncomfortable and to have a mechanism in place, regardless of how crazy a particular bill is that an individual wants to bring in on their reading of what is important to their community, what is important to their country. We should have the strength of character to allow that bill to be voted for on the floor of the parliament. I hope that the trust and spirit of what has been negotiated does stick, and I would hope that everyone who cares about private members’ rights also keeps an eye on that one.

The second reason it matters is that this is a significant moment in the relationship between the executive and the parliament. In this country we have a tradition that has over time, over its 100-odd year history, drifted towards public policy being about the Treasury benches. The way in which the parliament has been run in the traditional sense is that we are at times at the whim of the ministry to determine the agenda of the parliament, which issues are debated and which issues are important for this country.

Today matters in that we are now shifting the dynamic a bit, but a significant bit, in giving the parliament and the floor of the parliament a bit more authority in its relationship with the executive. The executive no longer has a clear mandate and authority in that relationship. Whether that is a reflection of the moment or whether, over the next three years, the parliament and all its members will see the benefit of that shifting dynamic and that shifting of authority, I would hope that the upsides far outweigh the downsides and that this is a sustainable model for the future. In the UK parliament, standing order 14 debate is alive and well. Backbench members of parliament of all political persuasions have been muscling up to the executive to try to get the floor of the parliament to be the place of authority in the way that public policy is delivered in their country. Hopefully, some of that is now being seen in our country.

Today matters for a third reason, and that is talk versus action. I accept that plenty of the issues that are in this reform document have come from the major parties, but I also hope everyone accepts that it has been difficult for the major parties to bring in and enact many of these reforms because of that simple dynamic of government versus opposition and the fact that whoever has the authority of the moment does not want to change things too much. Plenty of the things that are in this document have come from the benches of the major parties, and I thank them for their involvement. But I also hope there is a reflection of the last 30 days, of a moment where we have been able to achieve what has not been able to be achieved over the last 30 years. The acknowledgement of country at the start of every sitting day, for example, is done, I think, in every other state parliament and in most local councils. We were probably the last chamber in this country to take that on as an issue. I know the ‘Grandfather of the House’ or the ‘Father of the House’—he probably is a grandfather—Philip Ruddock, has been a champion of that issue for most, if not all, of his parliamentary career, which is 30 or 35 years, yet there has been an inability, because of the way the numbers work on the floor and the way the standing orders are written, to achieve a simple outcome. In 30 days all of us have been able to achieve in this reform document more than what has been achieved in 30 years, and that is why this dry debate actually matters at this moment.

I will go back, because I need to correct some of the comments that were made by the member for Sturt about my keenness on particular issues. I would hate for there to be a reinterpretation of some of the negotiations. There was a sense that I was keen on backbench question times, questions at the end of speeches and minimal notes. I am keen on the whole reform package, but I was no more or less keen than anyone else. I would hate for this to be an exercise of putting the controversial issues in the crossbenchers’ corner. Everyone signed up to a document. I would hope that due diligence was undertaken by all in that process and that therefore everyone, it is to be assumed, is keen on certain aspects that are in that document, compared to what was removed in any compromises that had to be reached.

Because backbench question time was raised, we now have—which should be of interest to all backbench members—a broader consideration in detail in the Main Committee. That is essentially a backbench question time, and I encourage everyone to embrace that process. It is a time when you can put ministers on the spot and really hit them with all your local or national issues and have good-quality engagement without notice. That was where that issue ended up.

I also hope that everyone tries to push both their ministry and their shadow ministry on the concept of minimal notes for question time. I think it deadens public policy debate at that time in the day, when it is the public face of the parliament. I would hope that we all have the skills to do better than just standing up and reading a question and then just standing up and reading an answer. This is not about effecting market-sensitive outcomes. Where necessary, obviously, notes are important but where they are not necessary I would hope this is a time of challenging both the questioner and the responder with regard to their professional skills as wordsmiths. That should be the time when that challenge takes place.

I want to mention the late Peter Andren. There has been plenty of debate about parliamentary reform for years. An inquiry was undertaken before the 2007 election and submissions were received from a whole range of people. One submission was from the late Peter Andren. He was looking for 30-second questions and two-minute answers. If I was keen on anything that I had to compromise on, it was that. Out of respect to him, as well as out of respect to the logic of the argument, if I am going to get pinned for being keen about anything it should be about that submission from the late Peter Andren on questions and answers having time limits. I and others have compromised on the timing. We have got up to 45 seconds for questions and four minutes for the answers. But that has very much come, and should be acknowledged as having come, from the work that was done by the late Peter Andren.

This reform matters for a fourth reason, because the committee system is now back in the game like it has not been before. If you look at any valedictory speeches from former members you will see that most mention that the best part of their time in this place was their committee work, that consensus work—it is almost a dirty word now—where public policy was dealt with not on political lines as much as possible but on apolitical lines as much as possible. That is now a re-energised process.

The final reason—the obvious reason—that today matters is for the moment. This parliament is obviously tight on the numbers. Yes, this process embraces what has been talked about for 30 years; yes, it tries to set it up for the next 30 years and beyond; but there are parts of this agreement that reflect today and how tight the numbers are. So this issue of the recommittal of votes matters. The issue of the pairing of the Speaker and the spirit behind that actually matter, and it is disappointing that we have lost that. If anyone is wondering if there was any conspiracy behind any of that, there was not. It was a reflection of our trying to make a working parliament for at least the next three years.

This is good work. I thank Chris and Albo. I thank everyone involved, including Simon Banks, Bruce Hawker, Grahame Morris and Arthur Sinodinos. Hopefully everyone will now work on this in the spirit and with the goodwill that they should. (Time expired)

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

I thank the member for Lyne and note his particular passion for restricting time limits, as reflected in the change in standing orders which all of us ministers are going to be bound by, come two o’clock!

I want to comment on the difference between the opposition amendment being carried and the opposition amendment being defeated. The opposition’s amendment is the same in spirit as what we propose. We had discussions which went along the lines of: ‘How do we ensure that there is not an automatic recommittal of votes, as there is in the Senate?’ In the Senate, if a senator misses a vote they stand up and say, ‘I missed a vote; it was for this reason,’ and there is an automatic recommittal. There was a discussion about ensuring that there would be an explanation given and a demonstration that the House accepted that explanation. The demonstration would have to be accepted by a majority vote of this House, which is why we put the provisions as we did.

If the standing orders as drafted are carried by this House unamended, there will still have to be two votes: the first vote on whether there should be a recommittal and the second vote on the substantive item that was before the House. If the amendment moved by the opposition is carried, it will not make a difference in effect; it will ensure that there is a longer procedural wrangle about ensuring that the majority will of the House is reflected.

Normally the votes in this House will not go something like 74 to 75; they will go something like 70 to 69—or who knows how—because people will have leave. Eventually, the opposition will get over the fact that they lost the election and will get serious about granting pairs, so that the sort of discussion and debate that there has been about whether the member for Sydney will have a pair after she gives birth will not happen. In reality, common sense will prevail and a pair will be granted. I recognise the fact that that will occur, just as today a pair has been granted for when the member for Hotham addresses the National Press Club. That is just common sense. But, if an absolute majority rather than a simple majority is required, people will simply put on the Notice Paper a recommittal of votes and then it will be allowed to occur without an absolute majority.

There are procedural ways of ensuring that the majority view of this House will be implemented. There are ways of making that difficult—which take longer—but there are not ways of subverting the will of this House. Our amendment ensures that the will of this House will be carried. I commend the amendments of the standing orders to the House. I regret the fact that the opposition have walked away from the pairing of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, but I commit the government to working through these changes in the spirit of cooperation which we saw in the lead-up to the re-formation of the Gillard government in the aftermath of the 21 August election.

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

The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this, the honourable member for Sturt has moved as an amendment that proposed standing order 132(b) be omitted with a view to substituting alternative words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question put.

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

Order! While I have the attention of the House during this division, I would like to make the following statement. Members may appreciate that at this stage of the parliament the only members who can occupy the chair are the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the Second Deputy Speaker. I have not yet appointed a Speaker’s panel, and the normal roster has not been able to be prepared. Standing order 16 provides for the appointment of a Deputy Speaker and a Second Deputy Speaker to ‘take the chair of the House whenever asked to do so by the Speaker’. Accordingly, when either the Deputy Speaker or the Second Deputy Speaker is rostered to be in the chair, it could be assumed that this was at the request of me as Speaker. In the case of members of the Speaker’s panel, the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker may call on them to take the chair of the House, and so the same assumption about their appearance on a roster for chair duty can be made about members of the panel. I should make it clear to the House that the arrangements for rostering in the chair, including rostering at times when divisions may be expected, are purely a matter for the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the Second Deputy Speaker in consultation with members of the panel. Members may wish to refer to the terms of standing orders 16 and 17 in particular and to the House of Representatives Practice pages 199 to 203.

The result of the division having been announced—

The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.