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 Maintenance of the standing orders, together with the minutes of proceedings.

I am pleased to present the Procedure Committee's report into the maintenance of standing orders. As members would be aware, it is the 'bread and butter' business of the Procedure Committee to review the operation of the standing orders each parliament.

This report examines amendments made to the standing orders at the commencement of the 44th Parliament and makes recommendations for change in those areas that have not operated as successfully as would have been intended. It recommends changes to certain standing orders to reflect current practice or to better reflect sound parliamentary practice. It also provides suggestions for possible amendments to standing orders to be considered by the House recognising the change in practices to debate management motions and urgent matters.

This examination led the committee to consider some of the other cultural and procedural challenges that the House has faced over recent years. It acknowledges that the turbulence the House has experienced—changes of speakers and prime ministers mid-term, a hung parliament and a return to majority government—has influenced the practices and procedures of the House.

The standing order changes made in the 44th Parliament have highlighted the inevitable tensions in a parliament from which members of the executive government are drawn and the careful balance that must be struck between the executive's desire to pursue its legislative agenda and the parliament's role as a scrutiny body.

This report considers the balance of this tension and recommends measures to ensure the relative standing of the House. It makes the point that procedural changes made by an executive to ease its relationship with the legislature risks blurring the important distinction between the legislature and the executive that is at the core of the Westminster tradition. This does not serve the long-term interest of the House, the government and ultimately, the Australian people.

Some of the recommendations in this report are far-reaching and seek to place control of matters which are not strictly government business firmly in the hands of private members. With Westminster principles and the primacy of the House in mind, the committee has recommended changes to the composition and operation of the Selection Committee to enhance the status of private members' business and that House support be given to this important committee by the adoption of general principles relating to the selection of private members' business by resolution with continuing effect.

Significantly, the committee has considered the changes made this parliament that provide for the appointment of chairs of committees by the Prime Minister and deputy chairs by the Leader of the Opposition. Committees have an important scrutiny role over the executive and this change in practice raises questions about the relationship between the House, its committees and the executive and, if chairs are appointed by the executive, to whom they are responsible. In effecting this change, the executive has appropriated for itself, and the opposition leadership, a function which properly belongs to the House and its members.

At the very least, this standing order should revert to the longstanding practice of committees electing their own chairs and deputy chairs. However, in considering the principle of the primacy of the House over its functions, the committee has taken the view that the House should have a more active role in the selection of committee chairs. It has therefore recommended that chairs of committees be elected by secret ballot by the House as a whole. It is the House to whom chairs are ultimately responsible and the House should have a decisive influence on the identity of the chair. This practice has recently been adopted in the mother of parliaments, in Westminster, and is working well.

It is important that the executive is able to fulfil it legislative program and the procedures of the House should support this function. It is equally important that this does not encroach on the House's capacity to fulfil its scrutiny role. All members of the House must understand, value and defend their rights as individual members. It is only through a strong House that we can achieve sound governance for the electorate we represent in this place.

In conclusion, I imagine that this will be the last report that I table from the Procedure Committee and that this is probably my last speech in this place. I have been Chair of the Procedure Committee for the last six months and, in that time, we have produced four reports, which I think are very far reaching—on nursing mothers in this place; on the consideration in detail process after a budget to allow for more genuine to and fro between the government and the opposition; on the issue of electronic voting; and also on the standing orders. So, it has been a productive six months. I would like to thank the secretariat, both James and Siobhan, who have done a tremendous job in preparing these reports and enabling us to fulfil our role. I commend the report to the House.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

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

This report addresses the operation of the standing orders during the 44th Parliament. I again make it clear that the opposition members on this committee have responded well to the leadership of the member for Boothby and the secretariat. The report makes a number of recommendations regarding what I would describe as minor technical amendments to clarify the operation of certain standing orders and to make minor consequential changes, such as    clarifying the nature of the presentation of documents in standing orders 2 and 34, on page 23 of the report; clarifying the role of the Clerk in certifying matters in the Federation Chamber, on page 24 of the report; and amendments to standing order 192 to reflect current practice in the Federation Chamber.

The report also discusses matters for further consideration, on pages 25 to 27 of the report, to reduce disruption caused by unscheduled divisions during the period for deferred divisions and to reflect the now well-established practice of debate management motions, rather than use of the guillotine. We have seen ministers in the last few years seeking to have their matters debated immediately, with decisions being made immediately and longstanding meetings of backbench members and ministers being disrupted.

The most significant discussion and recommendations in the report go to matters which rightly belong in the control of the House but which the executive has appropriated for itself. As the member for Boothby outlined, this is a prerogative of this place that ought not be conceded to the executive. Most significantly the committee has recommended that the House elect chairs of committees, on pages 12 to 16 of the report, and the appointment of chairs and deputy chairs by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition raised serious concerns for the committee. The report suggests that this new practice seriously undermines the role that committees play in scrutinising the executive.

Of course this follows a progression of history in this parliament where members of both sides in question time follow the leadership of the Leader of the House or the Manager of Opposition Business. In the past, during question time, the first two or three questioners were at the suggestion of the executive and then it was a free-for-all and a lot of people got up and asked questions based on their own research. The ability of backbench members to do that kind of thing has passed, regrettably, and it does not seem like it is coming back. That has led to people in this House being a lot less involved in questioning the government of the day. It is a regrettable development which we do not want to see go further with the election of committee chairs nominated by prime ministers or other members of the executive, including the opposition executive.

The report recommends changes to the composition of the Selection Committee in order to enhance the status of private members' business and encourages members to be more actively involved in this process by suggesting a process by which members seek direct responsibility for justifying the merits of their items of business and seeking support for the debate from other members. That is on page 9 of the report. Finally, the report notes:

The House and its Members ought to be mindful to safeguard their rights and prerogatives against excessive encroachment by the Executive.

That is ultimately what this place is all about. There has been a continuing trend, since this place transferred from down the hill, towards an increase in executive powers. I am not sure this has been a good thing, but we ought to try and draw a line in the sand at least with the election of committee chairs. This committee operated very well after the untimely death of Don Randall, and I commend the secretariat and the member for Boothby for his four reports, I wish him well in his future happy trails.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

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

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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