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

I rise to support the remarks of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Procedure. The report entitled Maintenance of the standing and sessional orders: first report: debate on the election of Speaker, which we are currently considering, is noteworthy for the speed with which it has been implemented. I wish I could say that about all other reports. As has already been said, it deals with the nomination and seconding of a new Speaker and—as we have a learned deputy speaker in the chamber—whether or not the Clerk was within standing orders in permitting such a nomination and seconding. I think the whole purpose of this report is to indicate that perhaps he was outside the standing orders. This makes a change so that if there is only one nomination then both the nominator and the seconder can still speak.

My party has been associated with a proposal for an independent Speaker, under the former leader the honourable member for Hotham, Simon Crean. I thought that that proposal was a very worthwhile addition to the discussion about parliamentary reform, but I remain of the view that, more than just an independent Speaker, it is the commitment of a government—and in particular of the Leader of the House—to parliamentary reform that is the key to lifting the standards in parliament. In my party, we are prepared to embrace parliamentary reform in the interests of the people.

The Procedure Committee sounds quite an arcane sort of title for any particular committee, but it has done good work over some time. If I mentioned the lack of commitment to reform, can I mention some reports: the excellent report initiated by former Speaker Andrews about reducing the time of second reading speeches to 15 minutes and allowing five minutes of questions. It is a proposal that was designed to ensure that there was a greater interaction, particularly in the House itself. That report has languished and not been responded to. We brought down an excellent committee report and recommendation on establishing an estimates committee. I might say that all these things are unanimous proposals of the Procedure Committee. Again, the proposal for an estimates committee languishes without support in the government. Three parliaments ago, the then Chair of the Procedure Committee, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, now Special Minister of State, brought down a report about changing the proceedings for the opening of parliament, including a component of an Indigenous welcome in those proceedings. That report has never been responded to.

With regard to the tabling of reports that have been referred to, let me say that I am unequivocally very supportive not only of the proposals of the Procedure Committee but also of the fact that they be adopted. If I am critical of any area, it is the lack of response by chairs and deputy chairs of parliamentary committees expressing views about how these procedures should operate. I do hope that chairs and deputy chairs in particular take up the invitation of the chair of the Procedure Committee to respond. This is a significant improvement on pre-existing arrangements. Any member of the House, as well as those committee members who have worked so hard on committee reports, gets a timely opportunity to make a contribution. Again, I do not walk away from the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, but I might say that I was personally in favour of having the whole procedure done on a Monday morning in the Main Committee—that is, the initial tabling and debate of the report on a Monday morning. That did not happen but, again, I in no way wish to denigrate or walk away from my support and the unanimous acceptance of the current arrangements as they exist.

We are going to review the 15 minute sin-bin rule that has been instituted in the Main Committee. I would be less than honest if I said I did not have some reservations about it. This is supposed to be a very informal, interactive chamber. That is its character and nature, and I think we should try to preserve it. If the Deputy Speaker or the Speaker’s panel are of a mind to implement it, as I say, I think it should be done judiciously, cautiously and only at an extreme. I place on the public record that I do not believe it should be applied in some way in terms of the standing orders on relevance in debating legislation in this chamber. If it is used to enforce a very strict application of relevance, the opposition would need to rethink its attitude. It has not happened, and I am pleased that that is the case. Again, as the chair of the committee has said, the preservation of three-minute statements in the Main Committee, notwithstanding any divisions that may occur in the House, is a giant step forward, and I know it will be of great benefit to all members of the House.

Some discussion has been had of the trip of the Procedure Committee. I place on record my thanks to the chair of the committee, who led the delegation, and the secretary for being the one who was involved in heaps of arrangements and last-minute scrambling on occasion. It is true that we have come back really fired up and enthusiastic about further reform. But that will come to naught if members of this House do not take the time and the trouble to acquaint themselves with what it is that the Procedure Committee is proposing, whether they are in government or whether they are in opposition.

I will finish on a couple of notes. The Procedure Committee has always in its recommendations gone out of its way to enhance the opportunities for ordinary members in this place, whether we are bringing down reports about the way committees are run, whether we are looking at changing standing orders or whether we are entrenching things like the three-minute statements. There are no two better examples, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—and I know that you are Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—of important reports than the reports on Australia’s defence relations with the United States and a report about a delegation visit to Iraq. The fact is that under previous arrangements the only speaking time would have been five minutes a side in the House and then many weeks later, if people were of a mind to then debate it. But we now have a very timely handling of committee reports.

Committees do two things. Firstly, they are the universities of the parliament. It is an opportunity for all members of parliament to gain greater knowledge and understanding of important issues affecting our constituents. Secondly, in my view, it puts on display the best traditions of the parliament—that is, members of parliament coming together to tackle an issue or a question in the best interests of the nation. They are on that parliamentary committee not as a National Party member, not as a Liberal Party member, not as a Labor Party member but as members of a committee determined to do the best by the people of Australia. I have always believed in parliamentary committees and in enhancing and expanding their roles. Last, but not least, I repeat what I started with. I belong to a party that believes in robust parliamentary reform. The pendulum of executive dominance of this place has reached an extreme and we have to start winding it back.

See this speech in context