Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report entitled Consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill together with the minutes of proceedings.

I am pleased to present the Procedure Committee's report on its inquiry into the consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill. The consideration in detail of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) is an important part of the annual budget debate. It gives members from both sides of the House the opportunity to examine the detail of the bill and to debate and question ministers on proposed expenditure for their portfolio area.

In recent years, however, members have expressed concern that the conduct of the debate limits opportunities for effective government scrutiny. In particular, members are concerned about the allocation of the call and the length of speeches during the debate. During last year's budget debate, members raised these issues in the House. The then Speaker, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, referred the matter to the Procedure Committee, requesting that the committee find a consistent approach that would be more satisfactory to members.

Current practice is that both government backbenchers and non-government members participate in consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill, usually directing questions to the relevant minister. With more government backbenchers participating, the call is now typically allocated as it is during question time—government member, minister, non-government member, minister and so on. This is inconsistent with the practice applying in all other debates. There are concerns that the allocation of the call in this way results in a disproportionate allocation of time to the government side, more than two-thirds instead of about half.

The committee notes the principle that in all debates, as far as practical, the call should alternate between government and non-government members and should allow both sides roughly equal speaking time. This report asserts that effective scrutiny of the main appropriation bill would be enhanced by a more balanced distribution of speaking opportunities between government and non-government members and suggests ways to achieve this.

The allocation of the call did not seem to be such an issue when members, including ministers, confined their contributions to a short question or answer or to a short debating point. The current practice of members making long speeches, often taking the full five minutes available to them, has significantly changed the nature of the debate.

This report recommends a trial of shorter time limits, allowing members an unlimited number of two-minute contributions. The committee hopes that shorter time limits will re-energise the debate, encourage greater interaction between participants, encourage more direct responses by ministers and allow for contributions by a greater number of members.

Through the course of its inquiry, the committee identified some uncertainty amongst members regarding the purpose and conduct of the consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill. The report, therefore, recommends that the House adopt sessional orders which clarify the existing rules applying to the debate for the benefit of chairs and participants. The report also suggests that the Speaker make a statement to the House, to be repeated by the Deputy Speaker in the Federation Chamber, prior to the commencement of the consideration in detail stage, to offer some guidance to members regarding their roles in the proceedings and the practice and procedures applying to this debate.

The committee would like to see the House adopt the proposed sessional orders in time for this year's budget debate. If the trial of these measures is successful, they could be adopted as permanent procedures for the 45th Parliament. I commend the report to the House.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I endorse this report and the remarks of the member for Boothby, who has taken over the chair of the Procedure Committee following the tragic passing of the member for Canning and who has conducted this report since that event.

Concerns have been raised for many years regarding the conduct of the main appropriation debate and, as the member for Boothby said, specifically the allocation of the call. Most recently, the member for Grayndler raised concerns to the committee about the allocation of the call resulting in an unequal allocation of time in the debate between government and non-government speakers. The call has been allocated as if it were question time; however, question time is not a debate; the consideration in detail of the main appropriation is a debate and members have a right to make a contribution within the rules of a debate that they see fit. For example, they may ask the minister a question or they may move an amendment to a bill to reduce the amount of expenditure. The report recognises how the allocation of the call has led to concerns about the debate but also recognises that members were more satisfied with the debate when there was free-flowing interchange of short questions and answers. I think both ministers and members have got into bad habits of using the full amount of time.

Therefore, the committee has made a number of recommendations aimed at clarifying the rules around the debate and recognising the benefit of short statements. It has also recommended that members be permitted to speak for an unlimited number of two-minute periods. This would be a reduction from the five minutes allowed for other consideration-in-detail debates. The report offers some guidance as to those members chairing the debate to assist them in this duty. It also offers guidance for participants so they may achieve a more interactive debate.

The committee has also suggested that the Speaker make a statement to the House, as the member for Boothby said, and that that be repeated by the Deputy Speaker in the Federation Chamber so that people who are participating in the debate will understand what they are doing; and it will facilitate the participation of members in the debate.

As the member for Boothby said, there are two specific recommendations of this report. There are a couple of interesting points that were made in the committee's report about the proposed sessional orders, which I would like to incorporate into Hansard.

3.20   Currently, consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill is governed by the same standing orders that apply to the consideration in detail of other bills. The Clerk of the House has suggested that this debate ‘differs so much from the normal consideration in detail process that it should have its own rules clearly set out.’ As a minimum, the Clerk suggested that:

it would be helpful to chairs, ministers and Members generally if the existing standing orders specifically applying to the budget and estimates debates could be co-located (that is moved, copied or at least cross-referenced) under the section of the standing Orders headed Financial Procedures.

3.21   In the Committee’s opinion, the annual consideration of the budget and the consideration in detail stage, in particular, are unique, and of such importance, that the procedures for the main appropriation bill should be explicitly provided for in the Standing Orders, to make clear:

The Clerk has drafted proposed sessional orders, and I think the committee's report has made some recommendations that will deal with bad habits that the main appropriation bill consideration in detail has got into. I commend the chair for this report. I think it will be a valuable step in getting the parliament back into using this important debate for the purpose for which it was meant.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Boothby wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next sitting.