Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wanted to make a few brief remarks about these changes to the standing orders. You will recall that when three-minute statements were first foreshadowed in 1997 the then Leader of the House in fact referred to constituency statements. So the current Leader of the House, Mr Albanese, the member for Grayndler, in changing the name back recognises this fact and, in particular, recognises the central importance of all members of the House being given opportunities to speak about issues of concern to their constituencies.

I want to place on record my appreciation to the Leader of the House for supporting this. I should point out that when three-minute members’ statements first started only three speakers were allowed on each side of the House and the debate went for only 18 minutes. It was extended, of course, to half an hour. This motion by the Leader of the House completes the circle.

Originally, three-minute statements were not preserved by the interruption of divisions. If a member was making a three-minute statement or was due to speak next, they lost their opportunity—the Main Committee did not take up where it left off. This was to the considerable detriment of those members who wanted to utilise the facility. It is true to say that this was rectified in 2006 for all the scheduled meetings of the House—that is, on Wednesday and Thursday. Rather than moving a separate motion in the House when there are extra sittings of the Main Committee, the Leader of the House now has automatically provided for constituency statements and also the fact that, if there are interruptions by divisions in the House, we will take up where we left off. The term ‘constituency statement’ is not defined in the standing order. It will be up to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and members of the Speaker’s panel to determine, by way of precedent, whether there should be any confining of statements made on that speaking opportunity.

The Leader of the House also mentioned that, in the last parliament, there were 118 occasions providing a total of 1,105 speaking opportunities for members to make three-minute statements. This shows how members have responded very positively to the speaking opportunity. As with other changes to the standing orders, I would expect the member for Parramatta, who is chair of the Procedure Committee, would review that. Hopefully, the review may even encompass whether or not there is a case to be made for more constituency statements now that both parliamentary secretaries and ministers have that opportunity to speak.

I strongly support this change and I commend the Leader of the House, who has always sought, in his short time as Leader of the House, to provide more opportunities for members of the House.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context