Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak to the motion moved by Senator Evans on the first report of the Procedure Committee for 2008 relating to standing order 72. I note, as other speakers have, that this is a very welcome report by the Procedure Committee of the Senate. It addresses a number of very important issues including that of the amendment to standing order 72 relating to the direction of questions to ministers at question time and suggests that perhaps greater precision or clarity could be achieved by an amendment to that standing order being passed by the Senate and being adopted as a temporary order until the end of this year. I am sure that will come under further discussion in this chamber as the debate proceeds.

I also wanted to refer to some other provisions of the report. The Procedure Committee, as other senators have commented, often works under the radar as it were. It is not necessarily one of the high-flyers of the Senate committee system in terms of the glare of publicity and the tumult of debate, but on this occasion it does put forward some very interesting suggestions for the consideration of senators and I think this is a very valuable report.

I am firmly of the view that procedures in this place should be considered in a dynamic and active manner and from a dynamic and active perspective. I think the Senate should be able to consider its arrangements regularly and, in presenting this report on four or five very specific areas, the Procedure Committee has provided some important material for our consideration.

I know there was some publicity attracted by the proposals for the restructuring of question time particularly those contained in the attachment of the report—the discussion paper presented by the then President of the Senate, my colleague Senator Alan Ferguson—and those proposals did attract some media attention. I think that it is important for us to consider the possibilities of change. I note in Senator Brown’s remarks, as well as referring to the specific recommendations in this report, he made some reference to the need to have a little more flexibility in the process in relation to questions without notice specifically continuing and I think that is very worthy of consideration.

I have not had the opportunity, given the tabling of the report only yesterday, to examine in great detail the four specific proposals that the report outlines, but I do want to congratulate those members of the Procedure Committee who were prepared to bring this forward. It does answer those challenges, if you like, of dynamism that I put forward in my remarks just a moment or two ago.

I have also had the opportunity, as Senator Ferguson noted in his remarks, to view question time in a number of other parliaments which adopt the Westminster system, most particularly that of New Zealand, which I have had the opportunity to see on several occasions. It is a very different process from the one in which we engage here—I was going to say the one which we enjoy, but I am not sure it is always an enjoyable experience. It is a very different process and in a multiparty chamber such as New Zealand’s now is that obviously has an influence on the way in which their question time plays out. I think some aspects of New Zealand’s parliamentary procedure are worthy of our consideration and I hope that the chamber is able to do that.

I note also the other aspects of the report in relation to the reference of bills to committees and I note that the concerns, which were raised previously, can be addressed under existing procedures. I think that the comment that the Procedure Committee makes about maintaining the principle that only the Senate may decide whether bills should be referred to committees is an important one and one which we should continue to observe.

The clarification suggested in the report relating to the deputy chairs of committees and the specificity needed in that proposed amendment is obviously also very useful to ensuring that the processes of the committees of the Senate are able to be carried out with confidence and with no doubt attached to the role of deputy chairs in the absence of the chair.

The final aspect of the report relates to the issue of leave to make statements. Of course, this arose out of recent events in the chamber, where statements extended over a longer period of time than senators who were in a position to grant leave expected at the time. I think putting some clarity around that, an agreed position on time, will lead to better and more efficient running of the chamber, and a better procedural approach to that particularly dynamic—again I use the word ‘dynamic’—aspect of what we do. The capacity to grant leave to make brief statements is, as other senators have said, an important part of our work. To have some clarity and certainty around that process is, I think, useful for senators and useful for the operation of the chamber. I am pleased to have been able to make a contribution to this debate.