Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to speak without closing the debate.

Leave granted.

I do not propose to speak for very long in relation to this matter. I tabled this report on behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure in the absence of the chair on 27 March. The report basically covers two areas. The first area is that current standing order 11(g) does not permit debate to take place on the election of a Speaker unless there is more than one candidate. This provision was the same in the former standing orders. In recent times we have had Speakers elected unopposed and members, whilst they have spoken, have strictly been outside the standing orders, and that point has been made by the Clerk at the relevant time.

The committee felt it was important that, even if a Speaker was elected unopposed—there was only the one candidate—the mover and seconder should be allowed to say something on their candidate’s behalf, for a number of reasons. It is a matter of record. At the time, I think it is important and it adds to an occasion when a member moves and another seconds someone for a particular position. It is important that they be given an opportunity to say why it is that that person is suited for the job. Even if there is no election, if the Speaker is unopposed, it is an important part of the record that the mover and seconder can point out particular qualities of the candidate for Speaker. We feel that that recommendation is not contentious; it is one that adds to the dignity of the moment.

The second recommendation, the main one, relates to the fact that currently the explanatory memorandum to a bill is presented at the end of the minister’s second reading speech. The committee has considered the proposal that the explanatory memorandum be presented when the bill is introduced, at the first reading stage. We are of the view that it is appropriate that an explanatory memorandum be tabled at the same time as the presentation of a bill—at the beginning.

The committee recommends that standing orders 141 and 142 be amended to provide that the explanatory memorandum to a bill be presented when the bill is presented, rather than at the conclusion of the minister’s second reading speech. Some recent instances where it would have been more appropriate for that to have happened have been laid out in the report. Again, it is non-contentious. The important thing that the Procedure Committee does in its ongoing review of the standing orders is to pick up the practicalities of some of the standing orders, to see whether they can be modernised, consistent with modern practices. This is in order not to provide advantage for one side over the other but to have something that both sides can embrace. Ever since explanatory memorandums have been produced it does seem to have been standard practice for them to be released to members and to the public at the same time as the bill is released—that is, when the bill is presented. We think that this should be picked up. Again, it is non-contentious.

I commend the recommendations of the committee to the House. I thank the chair of the committee, the honourable member for McPherson, for the courteous way in which she conducts herself as chair of this committee and for the way that she seeks to obtain cross-party support for recommendations. She does not run the committee in a partisan way—nor should it be run that way. I know that there will be some more far-reaching recommendations put to the parliament on behalf of the committee. A number of members of the committee recently had the opportunity to use their study allowance to go overseas. I was not one of them—probably for the betterment of other members of the committee. I know that they have come back with enthusiasm for some reform that might be achieved in the House. The report before the House is non-contentious. I think there are two areas: to standardise the practice and to make it more commonsense.

See this speech in context