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

():

I move:

That:

(1) standing order 1 be amended; and standing orders 34 (Figure 2), 100(f) and 104(c) be omitted and new standing orders 34 (Figure 2), 100(f) and 104(c) be inserted;

(2) standing order 2 be amended to insert a definition;

(3) standing order 3(c) be omitted and new standing order 3(c) be inserted, to take effect from 27 February 2012;

(4) standing order 183 be omitted and new standing order 183 be inserted, to take effect from 27 February 2012;

(5) amendments consequential to new standing order 183 be made, to take effect from 27 February 2012;

(6) the resolution of the House of 1 May 1996, "Broadcasting of proceedings—conditions of broadcasters", be amended, to take effect from 27 February 2012; and

(7) the House adopt a resolution, "Main Committee and Federation Chamber—transitional provisions" as follows:

1 Maximum speaking times (amendment to existing subject, as follows)

34 Order of businessThe order of business to be followed by the House is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2. House order of business

100(f) The duration of each question is limited to 30 seconds.

104(c) The duration of each answer is limited to 3 minutes.

2 Federation Chamber means the Federation Chamber of the House of Representatives established by standing order 183.

3(c) The standing orders also apply to committees of the House to the necessary extent, subject:

(i) in the Federation Chamber, to the orders in Chapter 14 (standing orders 183-198), and

(ii) in standing and select committees, to the orders in Chapter 16 (standing orders 214 247)

183Establishment of Federation Chamber

The Federation Chamber of the House of Representatives shall be established as a committee of the House to consider matters referred to it by the House as follows:

(a) proceedings on bills to the completion of the consideration in detail stage; and

(b) orders of the day for the resumption of debate on any motion.

The words "Main Committee" and [Main] "Committee", wherever occurring, be replaced by "Federation Chamber".

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION

Broadcasting of proceedings—conditions for broadcasters,

Resolution adopted 1 May 1996

The words "Main Committee", wherever occurring, be replaced by "Federation Chamber".

PROPOSED RESOLUTION

Main Committee and Federation Chamber—transitional provisions

That, with effect from 27 February 2012, all matters referred by the House to the Main Committee shall be considered to have been referred to the Federation Chamber.

I welcome the opportunity to move these changes. After the 2010 election the government worked in a consultative way with the opposition and with the crossbenchers to achieve parliamentary reform. The member for Lyne was, of course, a very significant contributor to that debate. The member for Lyne, the Manager of Opposition Business and I, as the Leader of the House, spent many hours together, assisted by speakers, former speakers and people who consider themselves experts in parliamentary procedure, to work through a series of changes that resulted in some fundamental reform in the way that the House of Representatives operates. These included, for example, a proper recognition of the role of private members in this chamber. Indeed, last year we had 52 votes on motions before the chamber; we had none in 2005, as a comparison. That has facilitated additional time and discussion before the parliament.

The other thing that we did was change the standing orders to provide some timeliness for questions and answers. At the time I moved that proposition I foreshadowed the potential for further changes. It is important that the parliament constantly review and finetune the way that we operate as a House.

Mr Speaker, upon your unanimous elevation to the high office that you hold, you have given consideration to the way that the parliament functions. I must say that I think your speakership has gotten off to an extremely positive start, and I congratulate you on that. You have shown yourself already to be fair, balanced and truly independent. I say that as someone who, up to this point, has yet to get a point of order up with you, but I am sure I will be more successful in the future than I was yesterday!

As part of the ongoing efforts to make parliament more accessible to the public—and I must pay tribute to former Speaker Jenkins, who was very concerned also about the functioning of parliament in question time—some flagging of changes has been made. As the Speaker you have already announced changes to the way that supplementary questions work, and I welcome those. You have indicated that you would facilitate the potential for up to two supplementary questions from members of the opposition, up to two supplementary questions from members of the government and a proportionate position with regard to the crossbenchers—the potential for them, reflecting the number of positions they hold in the chamber, to ask a supplementary question. I suspect that supplementary questions will not be taken up every day, but we will see how it works in practice; that is what we always have to do.

The amendments to standing orders that I have moved today arise from discussions held between you and me, as Leader of the House, and also separate discussions between you, the Manager of Opposition Business, me, the crossbenchers and everyone in between. I think there is broad agreement, although not consensus, with these propositions, which will allow for questions to be limited to 30 seconds and answers to be limited to three minutes; question time will conclude around 3.10 pm or after questions have been exhausted.

The government is committed to ensuring that question time does portray a transparent view of the workings of the parliament. Indeed, the government has been critical of the fact that question time has been interrupted by so many suspensions of standing orders that have concluded question time during this 43rd Parliament. Nonetheless, I believe the parliament functions extremely effectively. The fact that we have had 257 pieces of legislation carried by the 43rd Parliament is an indication of that.

The amendments before the chair also seek to rename the Main Committee as the Federation Chamber of the House of Representatives, from 27 February 2012. This is a reform which you have advocated, Mr Speaker, and which was recommended in a Standing Committee on Procedure report in June 2004—some eight years ago. So there has been a process of consideration of these issues, and for eight years the parliament has been thinking about it. Today we move a step forward to implement those recommendations which were made. This recognises the importance of the House's second chamber. The government has certainly given the Main Committee the respect it deserves. In 2011 the Main Committee sat for an average of 21 hours a week and debated 75 bills that had been referred to it by the House. In 2005 it sat for less than 10 hours a week and debated only 27 bills.

It is pretty clear that there is some confusion, even among members of parliament occasionally, arising from the fact that the Main Committee does not meet in the room that is known as the main committee room. There is also confusion from time to time about the status of the Main Committee. It has been suggested to me, for example, when debating the referral of a bill to the Main Committee, that such a referral somehow gives the bill less status because the Main Committee is not seen as the equal chamber that it is. It is simply this chamber meeting in another place at the same time so as to improve the efficiency of the parliament.

With regard to these changes, there are a range of motions that will be required as well. They have been worked through with the clerks in order to facilitate those changes. They are part of the changes in the motion that I have moved today.

There has been some suggestion that the 30-second time limit could be restrictive for particular members. I am sympathetic to that. With regard to the member for Kennedy, who is in the chamber, I say on behalf of the government—not on behalf of the opposition, as it is the government's position—that I as Leader of the House will not be interrupting the member for Kennedy to draw attention to the time of 30 seconds. That is because one of the great things about this chamber is that it is made up of characters who bring to the chamber different personalities and different ways of operating. The member for Kennedy is a person who has my utmost respect, particularly for the diligent way in which he goes about representing his electorate. I have had the privilege of visiting that great electorate of Kennedy, which is very different from the electorate of Grayndler, on many an occasion. I know that the member for Kennedy has put forward an objection to the change, which he sees as too restrictive. All I can say is that common sense often applies in the way that rules are implemented, and I see no problem with a bit of common sense being applied to the practical operation of the chamber.

With that, I thank all those who have worked so cooperatively to achieve this further reform. I indicate that, whatever other differences I have with the Manager of Opposition Business and others, we will continue to examine these issues and see how they operate in practice. We would not want to see, for example, fewer questions being asked in the parliament. That is certainly not the government's intention. Indeed, the government has the opposite view: the government is critical of the fact that there have been fewer questions asked because of the suspensions of question time. The government will continue to take the view that when a suspension of question time is moved it is an indication that there are no further questions requested of the government by those opposite. We have had that view consistently and we will continue to have that view about the importance of question time. I commend the motion relating to the amendments to standing orders that I have moved today.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before calling the Manager of Opposition Business, I would like to say that I am sure that the occupant of the chair would be benevolent in the direction of the honourable member for Kennedy in the event that more than the allotted number of seconds were needed in a particular case.

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

I will not delay the House at great length as there is agreement between the government and the opposition on this matter. I note that the Leader of the House seemed to spend a great deal of time talking about a lot of subjects that are not matters before the House today. I will not do that. What is before the House is the changes to standing orders with respect to the changing of the name of the Main Committee to the Federation Chamber, which the opposition supports. I have always believed that Main Committee was a poor name for the second chamber. In fact, when I was the chairman of the Procedure Committee I recommended that the name be changed from Main Committee to Second Chamber. But we are comfortable with Federation Chamber, because obviously Main Committee is a confusing name for everyone concerned. Also, I think it detracts from the importance of that chamber and the role it plays. So we support that change.

Another one of the changes we are making to the standing orders today—which will apply from today, I understand—is a change in the time limits for questions and answers. I believe that question time can sometimes become tedious and bogged down, particularly with respect to the answers given by the government to the dorothy dixers they ask themselves. I think reducing the time limit from four minutes to three minutes will mean that the clock ticks over faster. It is more efficient for question time. I think we will get more information as a consequence of this change to the time limits. In fact, three minutes was the time limit we suggested in the negotiations for a better parliament with the crossbenchers and the government. It now seems like only yesterday but it was in fact 15 months ago.

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

And we're still here!

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

Yes, you are still there. We will see how long Julia is still there too in a few weeks time.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that is unnecessary, I will point that out to the Manager of Opposition Business.

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

I am being interjected upon, Mr Speaker.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We should focus on the motion before the chair.

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

Hear, hear! And I was doing so in a perfectly reasonable way until I was rudely interrupted by the Leader of the House—again, dare I say it.

So the opposition obviously do support a three-minute time limit for the answers in question time. Obviously there has to be a bit of give and take in a hung parliament. The government would not have agreed to reducing the time limit if the opposition were not prepared to agree to a reduction in our questions. I would point out that the vast majority of questions we have asked in this parliament have been 30 seconds or less. We very rarely ask a question that goes for longer than 30 seconds. I think a short, pithy, factual question is the better question. I have supported that view since I was elected in 1993. Therefore, the opposition have no difficulties at all with having a shorter time limit for questions.

I would say, on a slightly discordant note, that if there is one rule for the opposition there should be one rule for everyone in the chamber. I understand that the member for Kennedy has made a name for himself by asking longer questions. I think there should be tolerance where tolerance is justified, but I do not think that means a green light for everybody who is not in the opposition to ask a question that goes for longer than 30 seconds. For example, while we will not object to the member for Kennedy perhaps asking a longer question, we do expect that the Speaker, who upholds the standing orders, will intervene if the other members of the crossbenches think that is a green light for them to ask longer questions. We certainly will take objection to that.

Regarding other matters that are not before the chamber today and that you already flagged in a statement to the House last night—which you added to this morning—the opposition does welcome more supplementary questions being asked by all sides of the parliament. I believe very much in the need for spontaneity in question time. I think one of the criticisms of question time has been the slightly structured system that we have developed over the last 110 years. Dorothy dixers are a very good example of the paucity of real ideas on the government side and of real questioning of ministers. We believe spontaneity would be a welcome introduction to question time, for the government particularly.

I will also say that when you are considering other changes to the standing orders down the track, Mr Speaker, I also would welcome interventions in this chamber, which are allowed in the Main Committee. Thus, a member would be able—with the permission of the Speaker—to interrupt a person who is delivering a presentation in this place, except in the case of ministers' second reading speeches. I think that would also lead to more spontaneity in this place. I am sure those are matters you will also consider over the course of the next period in which you are Speaker in the House.

The opposition support these changes to the standing orders. We understand that this is a trial for the supplementaries over this session. We will see how that works, but I can only imagine that these changes will improve question time. The only other thing I would add is that the time for ending question time has apparently been changed from 3.30 pm to 3.10 pm; I think I am right in saying that. That takes into account the shorter time for answers to questions and the shorter time for questions. If that proves to truncate the opposition's or even the government's ability to ask 20 questions in the total period of question time, the Leader of the House and I, who have discussed this matter, will revisit it. But I see no reason that would be the case, as long as there are not constant interruptions.

The other point I would make is that what we saw yesterday, with the indulgences granted at the beginning of question time—for good reasons, those being the death of Sir Zelman Cowen, the Queen's diamond jubilee and the death of Peter Veness—are not usual occurrences. But, given that question time has been reduced so that it finishes at 3.10 pm, the opposition would take objection if they were to become usual occurrences. Obviously on the first day back after an eight- or nine-week break there are matters that need to be dealt with. That is the process of this parliament. But we do not want to see a habit develop whereby the government uses the generosity that is sometimes too easily given to it to avoid scrutiny in question time. We will obviously be taking up objection with you, as the Speaker, if that does become a pattern—if the government decides to use that as a tool in order to deny the opposition its share of questions.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Before calling the member for Lyne, I would like to say that I hope the Manager of Opposition Business was not reflecting on the impartiality of the chair with respect to time limits or with respect to benevolence that may or may not be given in relation to questions. I am sure he was not doing that. The chair intends to be firm, fair and impartial. I thank the Leader of the House and the Manager for Opposition Business for the cooperative way in which they have been prepared to entertain my proposals with respect to the reduction in time for asking questions and answering questions and also changing the name of the Main Committee to the Federation Chamber of the House of Representative. I do, with respect to further reform, intend to convene a meeting with the chair and deputy chair of the Procedure Committee to go through where we are and to look at what members would like to see occur.

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

I start by saying that I do not speak on behalf of all the crossbenchers. There has been a wide range of views expressed over the past 24 hours in these negotiations. From my point of view, as someone who participated quite actively in the parliamentary reform process at the start of the 43rd Parliament, I welcome this trial and appreciate the ongoing focus and the ongoing bipartisan work in trying to reach for best practice in parliamentary standards and cultural improvement. There may be a way to go for all 150 members of parliament and for us as a collective but I welcome the major parties, along with you, Mr Speaker, the new Speaker, the Procedure Committee and others continuing to reflect and to reach consensus where possible on how to improve standards in this chamber.

In regard to the specific issues I think there are no problems at all in changing the name of the Main Committee to the Federation Chamber. Hopefully that does give it more symbolic status so that speeches made in that chamber by members, private members in particular, have a better chance of being heard by their constituents and of being heard in the public policy debate.

The issues around question time become more interesting. I have been an advocate for some time of a submission made by the late Independent Peter Andren with regard to trying to make question time more spontaneous. Before he passed away, his recommendation was to limit each question to 30 seconds and each answer to two minutes. At the start of this parliament that was negotiated to 45 seconds and four minutes. I am pleased to see, after some reflection on the first year of some changes in that area, that we now are getting closer to the model of the late Peter Andren, with the limits set at 30 seconds and two minutes. Hopefully the length of answers given by ministers is open to further consideration.

Ultimately, though, the test of question time comes down to a couple of things. For all the policy, personality and political debates that make question time the hour that is watched by so many and that is so colourful, ultimately its test of worth is whether it is a test of the policy agenda of the executive and the government of the day. It is worthless if it is not. I urge you, Mr Speaker, to have a firm hand and to make sure, through all that colour and noise, the personalities and the politics, that ultimately the worth of question time is upheld. That is the test of the policy agenda of the day. I hope that firm hand from the chair allows that to ultimately happen.

The issue of supplementary questions is an interesting one and, whilst it is not one that requires changes to the standing orders, it can happen from the chair. It is one to watch. I would hope some of the conversations had with regard to the crossbenchers' position on that, wanting to be able to add a supplementary to questions where needed and if required, regardless of quotas, will be viewed favourably by you, Mr Speaker. I think we enter difficult territory if supplementaries do become quota based: the government get two, the opposition get two and the crossbenchers have to haggle for whatever. If the role of a supplementary question is to make question time spontaneous, keep people thinking on their feet and keep the executive on their toes then I think there is a role less for quotas and more for substance in the follow-up to questions asked.

The other issue that I did want to raise, which is alongside these reforms being introduced today, is a matter raised by my colleague from Western Australia Mal Washer, who is well regarded by all. He has in the past year raised the issue of the sitting hours and some of the changes in the roster. I would hope, in this mood of consensus and reflection on some of the changes that happened 18 months ago, that there is some consideration given to delaying divisions and votes on a Monday until a later time, say, five o'clock, so that members who have to travel a long way and members who do have families can make arrangements to travel on a Monday morning rather than on a Sunday. I think that would assist many members in this chamber. It would not change the ability to call for particular votes or to deal with private members' business or other issues on a Monday. I think it will pick up on some of the issues that have been raised by Mal Washer and others about the health of members of parliament and the work-life balance considerations.

In conclusion, I welcome the trial. I wish it well. On reflection, I think the majority of reforms reached in a bipartisan way 18 months ago are holding up and bedding down. I hope that is starting to make some of those changes sustainable for the long term. I think one to watch this year is the relationship between ministers and committees. I hope all committee chairs and committees generally do act fearlessly in making sure that committees keep ministers and the executive officers honest. On several fronts, we are now approaching a six-month wait for ministers to respond to several recommendations that have come from committees. This is the test of whether the committee structure has strength or not. I hope in 2012 that it does. I hope the committee chairs generally do fulfil their part of the reform process and make sure they keep the ministers and the executive as honest as possible.

The only complaint I have heard this year is that we are busier than ever as MPs. I think that is a compliment to the reforms and it is what the Australian community expects. If that is the only complaint, we are doing our job.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not delay the House greatly on this motion. I support it. I am pleased that there has been agreement in a very mature fashion about the length of time for questions and answers. I hope that that picks up the pace and sets the basis for a degree of spontaneity that is lacking at present.

I have been troubled by the House not coming to grips with the question of supplementary questions. It is ironic that there should have been for the whole time that I have been in this chamber a standing order on this while every member of the House has been running around trying to work out how to operate that standing order. I applaud your success, Mr Speaker, in getting a modicum of agreement so far. I think that you will use that agreement wisely to expand on the question of supplementaries.

But perhaps it is now time for us to look at other models. Clearly, when people talk about this being a parliament that has adapted the Westminster tradition, often the Westminster tradition has not been studied as well as it should have been. In regard to question time, the fact is that we have exemplified in Westminster true supplementaries, where—as learned colleagues like you, Mr Speaker, know—it is a bit like a grilling in court, with continued supplementary questions on the topic. In fact, it works so successfully that they continue until exhausted and then they move on to the next topic. But we have never had that maturity in this place. I hope that this is the first step towards that.

The member for Lyne gets blamed for lots of things that happen here. I was not going to enter this debate, but he made a very worthwhile comment about something that is not contained in these amendments, and that is the hours of sitting. That is the reason I felt that I should come down to support his comments and to urge us to adopt the types of things that Dr Washer, the member for Moore, has been pursuing consistently over many years. We should consider the way in which we run this place. I am not sure that we ever get a pat on the back because we are here at ungodly hours doing our business. In a way, there is an expectation that we work the 24 hours. But in fairness to the people who support us in this place we should act with more certainty.

Regrettably, I am in a minority of people in this place who think that we should alter the balance in our work. I believe that our role as legislators is just as important as our role as local members. The work that we do here is just as important as the work that we do in our electorates. I think it is a reflection of the undue influence that executive government exerts on backbench members of this place that we have this balance such that people are encouraged to go back to their electorates to do their work there, because their important work is back in the electorate. I see this place as the House of Representatives. I come here to represent the people who have elected me. There is much that is worth while that happens in Canberra while the parliament is sitting that we should devote more time to. And not by lengthening the hours in the weeks that we are here but perhaps by making sure that people understand that our role is to be here in Canberra and that we should be here more often.

The amount of time that people spend on their committee work is quite extraordinary and is not understood by the public. But it is limited to the time that we are here when the parliament is sitting. That is unfortunate. I hope that we get to a stage such that as a vibrant parliament we see that the role of the backbencher, especially when in government, is to question and to be involved in policy development. The media place pressure on us by saying that if we have a slightly different view to the leadership or to the minister then that is the end of the earth and that it is great disunity. It is ridiculous to think, for instance, that in this current minority government a caucus of about 100 people would all have the same view. The fact that we from time to time might express those different views has nothing to do with disunity; that has to do with the proper place of dialogue and debate in policy development. That should be encouraged rather than people running around saying, 'This is the end of the world as we know it,' because somebody disagrees with the Prime Minister or a minister. That is a debate for another day. I am perhaps digressing

I thank all of those who have worked in a cooperative manner to get us to this point in time with these changes to the standing orders. I would reflect that these changes are minor. Their impact might be major, but there is still work to do. I look forward to that and I wish you every success, Mr Speaker, in your endeavours in encouraging the Procedure Committee to influence those who make these decisions to have them presented before us so that we can vote on them. Regarding the Federation Chamber, it took a long time. I congratulate you on getting that over the line. It must be amazing for people to reflect on the fact that for such a minor thing, which was agreed upon by a bipartisan committee of this parliament eight years ago, we have had to wait so long. I thoroughly support the amendments to the standing orders before the chamber today.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Denison and I very much oppose the proposal with respect to time for questions. We are not going to divide and waste the time of the House. Since we have very strong feelings about this, we very much appreciate the assurances from you, Mr Speaker, and from the opposition and the government that a little bit more time will be provided to us. I would point out that the member for Denison and I, as the member for Kennedy, are two of the people furthest away from this area. We need more time to explain our position to people who come from the big cities who really do not have a feeling for some of the problems existing in very isolated communities.

Mr Randall interjecting—

There is a Western Australian making a noise there and he is quite entitled to. Those on that side of the House were in government for 12 years, and I do not think anyone was particularly admiring of their government's performance in Western Australia—not the people I know from Western Australia. Maybe you need a little more self-assertiveness.

This place has been reduced—let's be honest—to dorothy dixers from one side and banana peels from the other in the amount of intelligent debate. The speaker before last referred to Peter Andren, who put out a press release in his last parliament saying that in this parliament there would be only three people who ask genuine questions on behalf of the people of Australia and that the rest of it is all politics. That is almost a direct quote from one of his last press statements.

In the Queensland parliament in the years I was there I can tell you that the questions asked by National Party members were anything but dorothy dixers. I would say that at least once a week Premier Bjelke-Petersen called in one or the other to be roasted over the question they had dumped into the parliament. It does not serve the interests of the Australian people to muzzle your back bench. It does not serve the interests of the Australian people every morning to throw banana peels in front of government and think that that is your job. To illustrate my point, at the commencement of the state election campaign in Queensland one leader savagely attacked the other five times. Then the next leader came on and he savagely attacked the other four times. I was looking at my notes and I did not mention either of them. I was going to say what we were going to do for Queensland. You can argue whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, but that is not the way this place should be.

As far as I am concerned, every three weeks crossbenchers have a minute and a half of the public forum of Australia—question time is the public forum. I do not think the parliament really has that role; whether it should or not is a matter for debate. Question time most certainly is a forum which a lot of people in Australia watch. The only people who are asking genuine questions in the public interest—and I do not want to say that is true all the time because sometimes the opposition does and at odd times there is a contribution from the government. I believe that taking that half minute from our minute and a half every three works is muzzling and emasculating the voice of the people.

You have a party position but the people who sit here do not. Even Adam Bandt and I, who represent a party, do not have a party position in the sense I mean here. All the more reason why we appreciate your indulgence and respect, Mr Speaker, for the interests of the crossbenchers in providing that degree of latitude. The opposition's position can be put repeatedly throughout question time and the government's position can be put repeatedly throughout question time, but the crossbenchers' position cannot be put repeatedly throughout question time. We very much think that your indulgence there is more than justified.

I want to use an illustration to indicate why we need that time. If you go through the questions I ask, you see that yes, I am, like everyone else in this place, guilty of a little bit of pejorative twist in the questions but I send my questions to the minister. I am not here to throw banana peels in front of the government. I want genuine debate, and you do not get genuine debate by springing a question onto a minister three seconds before he gets up to speak—that is banana peels. When the Liberals were in power, I sent my questions to them as I do when Labor is in power. I want an intelligent response; I am not here to play political games.

Let me be very specific. The very great question for this country in the live cattle debate was that as a Christian nation we have a responsibility to help our fellow man, whoever they may be—the Good Samaritan and all that in the Gospels. I hope Indonesia have the same attitude because we have cut off their food pipeline. We are fighting wars. We have fought wars continually since I was handed a rifle in 1964 to protect our oil pipeline. The food pipeline is infinitely more important. The President of Indonesia has said, 'You can take these people because you have miles of empty space.' I will be very technical about this. If you take out 120 kilometres of coastline, the golden boomerang from Cairns, through Brisbane and Sydney to Adelaide, with a little dot around Perth, there are fewer than a million people living on a landmass—

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to draw the attention of the member for Kennedy to the substance of the motion we are debating.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, it sounds as though I am going away from the motion but I am not. I will endeavour to provide you with a more specific response. If you ask a question this way, 'Is the minister aware of the findings of the report on water development in Northern Australia? Could the minister advise the House whether the government is going to implement the committee's recommendations?' he will answer it by saying: 'We do not necessarily carry out the recommendations of a committee and we will be considering it in due course. The member is right in asking the question. We will provide an answer for that question in due course.' Please excuse me for saying that every single person in Australia who listens to that piece of garbage says, 'What's all that about?' So let us ask the question this way: 'The minister would be aware of the findings of the committee reporting on water development in Northern Australia and their recommendations that no dams or developments should take place in the northern third of Australia. In the light of the fact that Northern Australia has 304 million megalitres of Australia's water and the other two-thirds have only 80 million megalitres and we are trying to do all the farming in the bottom two-thirds and none in the top third, wouldn't the minister believe that there should be some development where the water and the farming land are, instead of in that part of the country where they are not?'

The minister is left with no alternative but to give an intelligent response, unless he wants to look like a fool. He has to come to grips with the real issue and the real guts of the question, which is that we are sitting on an area the size of China and using none of it to feed anybody—except for a few moo cows and a few sheep walking around, and they are dwindling: 60 per cent of those sheep are gone and 30 per cent of the cattle are gone. There is a hell of a difference between asking the 30-second question and asking the 45-second question, where you get that information and where you force the minister to give an intelligent response to one of the most burning questions. I will quote the great Ted Theodore, founder of the labour movement in our country, and one of the great heroes of Malcolm Fraser and of Paul Keating. If you walk into my office there is a big picture of him on my wall as well. You could not find three more unlike people—not that I am in their class of importance—but all of us agree on that. This great man said, 'We will not be able to hold on to this country.' This question is a burning question for the people of Australia. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono spelt it out three weeks ago in a very strong statement about boat people—'You have got plenty of land there and plenty of water there'. North Queensland can feed 100 million people. That is not a figure plucked out of the air. That is based upon the water and the land being used by—

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the member for Kennedy return to the substance of the motion, please?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, you understand what I am saying here. There is a hell of a difference between putting substance in a question and blandly asking a question, because you will get a bland, boring and utterly irrelevant response. That is the point that I am trying to make here. I crave the indulgence of the House in stretching my 40 seconds, or however much time I have used up so far, and I appreciate the indulgence of the House in this. I use this question as an example, because there would be no way you could get that message across in under 45 seconds.

The Leader of the Opposition has said, 'We always ask questions in under 30 seconds.' I said to him, 'That is not right.' He said, 'Well, you know—most of the time.' But maybe it is the other times that the opposition is doing the job an opposition should do. The supplementary is a very valuable weapon—I go right along with that. I am very pleased to see movement in that direction.

Finally, I have great difficulty every week of my life in figuring out why this place is so out of step with the people. Even the people of North Queensland could zip down to their state parliament late on Monday night and be back home on Thursday night. A fair proportion of federal members—members from Western Australia, members from Northern Australia, members from Tasmania—would find the best part of a day gone getting here. We spend a day getting down here and a day getting back. If you are in a party you are not allowed to go uptown to speak to the public servants, so you never get to speak to a public servant. But in the state parliament you could stay an extra day to speak to a public servant and still have three days back in your electorate. It is almost impossible for so many of us to be in our electorate—even the member for New England takes the best part of a day to get home, although geographically he is not that far away. I am sure there are other members in the same situation as the member for New England. Spending time down here means we are not interfacing with the people. All of us would know that if you want a project done—for example, I am spending immense time on getting a safe harbour in North Queensland—we need that time back there to organise it and to show the leadership that anyone who is an elected representative should show in the area he represents. The member needs to say, 'This is what has got to be done, fellas, and this is how we have got to go about it.' Convincing the electorate is quite frankly more important and it is a prerequisite before we come down here to convince it.

The arguments put up on the issue of time are very relevant indeed. Remember that maybe a fifth or a 10th of the members here will take a full day—with good connections—to get here. It takes me, for example, eight hours to get here, and I am sure Warren Entsch is no different. The member for Dawson would be no different, and the members for Western Australia would be no different. That is if you are lucky enough to get all the good connections and nothing goes wrong, because you have about four connections to get as well. It is one of the reasons I profoundly believe that we are out of step. Even if you do not agree with that proposition, we are more out of step that we should be. I think most people in this place would agree with that. The decent members here would love to have more time to interface with the people that they are supposed to represent. The opposition, the member for Denison and I support the proposal of the time limit.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the member for Kennedy would not mind my mentioning the conversation I had with him when he was the honourable member for Flinders in the Queensland parliament. He asked me did I have any questions for him to ask, because he had run out.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to keep the House for any great length of time in this debate on amendments to the standing orders, but I think this is an opportunity to say something about the style of how the parliament is run and how the niceties of parliamentary practice should be maintained. I do not mean that they should be either snobby or unduly obsequious. I am not suggesting that for a minute. I have noticed over the years I have been here that a lot of members do not perform the courtesy of bowing to the Speaker when coming in and out of the chamber or when approaching the chair—or they do it in a very superficial way. I remember that when John Howard, who was a parliamentarian in every sense of the word, came in or went out or crossed from one side of the chamber to speak to the other side on some matter he would always acknowledge the chair. I also note that some of the members—and the clerks also do this, in particular Bernard Wright, our senior Clerk, when he breaks the line of sight between the Speaker and a member on his or her feet—always bow to go under a symbolic line of sight between the Speaker and a member. Inherent in that is that, as you speak from your place in the parliament and address the Speaker, you are, in effect, speaking through the Speaker to the parliament and, if we are in broadcast mode, to the wider nation. I think such niceties should be maintained.

One that always sticks in my craw is the finish of the second chamber, that being the Main Committee or the Federation Chamber, whatever you want to call it. Most deputy speakers certainly start with the ritual bow to both sides of the House but at the end—and I think this always looks like Brown's cows—there is no sort of finishing aspect, because there is no door through which the Deputy Speaker can escape, as we have here in this House of Representatives chamber. Sometimes the Deputy Speaker goes out one of the doors at each end of the room, at the back, and sometimes he or she walks across and goes out with the members. I think that chamber's proceedings should finish with a bow from the Deputy Speaker to all the members, signifying that he or she has vacated the chair and the proceedings are finished and then people can talk or walk around and do what they like. Otherwise you stand around for about 30 seconds, like a stale sav, wondering whether you should say anything, until the Deputy Speaker has left the room. I think that is something that we could polish and it probably does not need any formal regulation.

I have some sympathy with one of the ideas that the member for Kennedy was talking about, and what follows is not said with criticism of either side of the House. We all know today that a lot of questions, if not all of them, are scripted. They are scripted for tactical and policy reasons. I think to some extent that has taken a lot of the spontaneity out of the House. I propose that perhaps time every day or perhaps one afternoon a week be devoted to unscripted questions by individual members. I do not agree with the member for Kennedy that you should send a prior notice to a minister. In saying that, I note that it is not to catch the minister out but rather to maintain spontaneity. I suppose that, if it were a question that required the minister to bring in some data, that courtesy might be extended with: 'I'm going to ask a question about so-and-so and you may need to have some data available.' But I think spontaneity is important, because in our electorates sometimes something happens which can be a state or a significant regional issue and, while it may not be particularly germane to our individual political parties, it can be very important to the constituents in our area and might even have national significance. So I think people should be able to ask a question and have an unscripted, spontaneous answer from the minister. That may involve the minister giving a commitment to do something. If you are going to give advance notice of your question, you might as well put in a written question because inevitably in that circumstance it is going to become the work of some bureaucrat. As I said before, it is not to catch the minister out; it is to get a spontaneous response to something that is germane to your electorate or, in your opinion, is of some state or national significance. So I would recommend that in any ongoing reforms, Mr Speaker, you might look, in conjunction with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of government and opposition business, at what a great thing it would be if we did have some time each day or each week that was devoted to unscripted questions.

Finally, I would like to return to the Federation Chamber, or the second chamber, as we sometimes call it, or the Main Committee, as we sometimes call it. I am not altogether sure that Federation Chamber is the right name, but if that is the will of the Committee and the parliament I will go along with it. There was some ambivalence towards it when it started but it is now well established, and I think both sides would recognise that it has become a successful mechanism for non-controversial legislation, for eulogies that would take up too much of the time of the House of Representatives chamber and for other measures such as extended debates on reports. I think it does serve a very valuable purpose, and the fact that other parliaments—including the UK parliament, using Westminster Hall—are picking it up and running with it proves that we have developed a very good model.

Of its nature, the chamber that we have is temporary. We have had meetings with the clerks, previous speakers and the whips—and I am one of the whips—where we have talked about what we might do there and we were consulted when some of the draft planning documents for a more elaborate chamber were discussed. So what I would like to put to you today, Mr Speaker, in the context of this debate about procedures and of the coming next year of the 100th anniversary of the foundation of Canberra—of its foundation, not of its completion—is that that would be a great opportunity to do something significant with that chamber. What are we in this parliament going to do? After all, the city of Canberra and the ACT were put together specifically for there to be a national, neutral seat of government. It had to be a minimum of 160 kilometres away from Sydney, it had to be between Sydney and Melbourne and it had to be on neutral turf, like the District of Columbia in the United States is. The genesis of that was in the year 1913, and we celebrate the hundredth anniversary—the centenary—next year. What are we in this parliament going to do? Wouldn't it be a great thing if we could complete that chamber? Yes, there would be a few million dollars involved. I am not suggesting that there would not be an expense involved, and I recognise that we are in fairly tough economic times, but there is sometimes never a right time to do these things. If you waited for the right time to build this building it would probably have never been built. Sometimes, the government and the opposition of the day just have to seize the initiative.

I would recommend, through you, Mr Speaker, that the next time you are in consultation with the Clerk and the leaders of both sides of the House you canvass the question of what we are going to do for 2013 to celebrate the formation in 1913 of what went on to become the national capital. I understand the ACT will do quite a bit of celebrating. What are we going to do here? My suggestion to you is that the completion, in its new designated position, of the Federation Chamber would be a fitting adjunct to that significant anniversary.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am actually ahead of the honourable member for Hinkler insofar as I have already asked that those plans be updated and shown to me. The honourable member's suggestion is something that the parliament should seriously consider.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just a very brief intervention after listening to this debate. I refer to the standing order 98 regarding questions to ministers. It says:

(b) During Question Time, a Member may orally ask a question of a Minister (but not a Parliamentary Secretary) without notice and for immediate response.

Can I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that there appears to be creeping into this place a practice—and we have just heard it from the member for Kennedy and others—of handing to the ministers their questions before question time. So it is not an oral question; it is a question basically on notice—a written question—which I think is not in line with the standing orders. We have had the spectre of some ministers, particularly the member for Kingsford Smith, then reading a whole dissertation as a result of having had the opportunity to answer a question with notice. I do not think it is in the spirit of the standing orders on question time in this place for both the opposition and the government to receive that. To have that admission in this place today, I find rather unusual.

The other observation I will make, and I know it has been largely agreed to today, is that because of certain idiosyncratic members we will give them the latitude of going past the time required for questions. How idiosyncratic do you need to be to break the time limit of a question? I place those observations on the record because I think we should be fair to all when we ask questions in this place.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Briefly remarking on the comments made by the member for Canning, I do not think that giving a minister prior notice of a question is outside the standing orders, but certainly it is outside the spirit of the standing orders at the time when the standing orders were written. I would like to see more spontaneity but I suspect that dorothy dix questions have been asked by private members of governments on both sides almost forever. The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

Question agreed to.