Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure I present the following reports, together with the minutes of proceedings: Encouraging an interactive chamber and Motion to suspend standing orders and condemn a member: report on events of 10 October 2006.

Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.

by leave—I am pleased to present these two reports today on behalf of the Procedure Committee. I am conscious that time is limited this morning so I will keep my remarks brief.

The first report, Encouraging an interactive chamber, looks at how we might improve debate in the House. I am sure all members at some time have heard the negative comments about so few members being present for debates—that we deliver set pieces to an almost empty chamber and do not engage one another in true debate. How we might encourage greater interactivity was one of the areas we examined during our study visit to a number of overseas parliaments earlier this year. A range of suggestions arose from that visit and from the submission by the Clerk to this inquiry. Suggestions included cutting the overall speaking time available for members, making it necessary for members to be in the chamber for the whole debate if they wish to speak—rather than arriving just in time—and leaving the call at the full discretion of the chair. Members will be relieved to hear today that we have not taken up those particular suggestions.

However, the committee has recommended the expansion of the intervention process that has been operating successfully in the Main Committee for several years, by allowing its use in the chamber itself. As a starting point, we have recommended that, on speeches on the second reading of bills, interventions be able to be made after the first 15 minutes of a member’s speech—in other words, in the final five minutes. Members would be able to opt out, just as they currently do in the Main Committee. Interventions should be brief and directly relevant to the speech on the second reading. Members using the intervention procedure to be disruptive would be dealt with by the chair. As in the Main Committee, interventions will not apply to the second reading speech of the mover of the motion or to the lead opposition speaker. We hope this will encourage members to come and listen to other speakers and to challenge and engage them on the content of their remarks. I would urge all members to support this proposal and participate in a trial of the procedure that we have recommended take place next year.

The second report reviews events in the chamber on 10 October when a motion was moved to suspend standing and sessional orders. This motion also expressed condemnation of a member. The committee has examined the events of that day, and subsequent debate, and focused on a number of issues. Was this combined motion setting a new precedent, as some claimed, or was it merely a continuation of existing practice? The committee considered the arguments in support of the combined motion and those arguments against in some detail, looking at the time available for debate compared to censure motions, the nature of the debate and the role of the Speaker.

When dealing with something as serious as the House being asked to judge the behaviour of a member, the committee has concluded that separate motions should be moved. That is, there should be a separate procedural motion moved to suspend standing orders and then, secondly, a motion moved that would allow the House to comment on the behaviour of a member.

The arguments are quite technical. But there is one underlying principle that I feel sure all members would support—that is, criticism, condemnation or censure of a member should only be made by way of a separate, distinct, substantive motion on which all members can vote. It is not good practice, the committee believes, to combine such motions with the procedural steps that allow the substantive motion to be moved. Accordingly, the committee has recommended an amendment to the standing orders to clarify the point.

I commend both reports to this House and place on record my thanks to all the members of the Procedure Committee—there are a couple in the chamber today. I thank the deputy chair of the committee, the member for Banks, for all his support. I thank the committee for all its support and commend committee members for their continued commitment to the committee itself and for all their hard work. We have tabled some outstanding reports this year. As well as putting on record my thanks to all the committee members, I thank the secretariat for the work they have done with us.

See this speech in context