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

by leave—I welcome the opportunity to make some comments about the reports by the Procedure Committee tabled today, and I endorse the remarks by the chair of the committee on the reports and also in regard to the secretariat. The secretariat do not often get the credit they deserve. The quality and nature of these reports would not be possible without the energy and the professionalism they give to their work, and the parliament owes them a debt of gratitude.

The report on the motion to suspend standing orders and condemn a member analyses the event of 10 October this year, when a minister moved a motion with the dual purpose of suspending orders and condemning a member of the opposition. While it is true that suspension motions relating to procedural and machinery matters often incorporate the purpose of the motion, the committee believe that this was not the appropriate way to go about criticising the conduct of a member of parliament, and we have recommended changes to the standing orders which would ensure that this will not happen again.

The report titled Encouraging an interactive chamber looks at the way second reading debates are conducted in this place, in an attempt to enliven the atmosphere and promote a greater level of interaction between members. This report refers to a previous report of the committee titled Arrangements for second reading speeches, in which the committee endorsed a proposal by the then Speaker, the Hon. Neil Andrew, MP. Speaker Andrew proposed that second reading speeches be shortened to 15 minutes, with the five minutes thus saved to be available for a question and answer period.

The recommendations of that report were not agreed to by the government at that time, and on this occasion the committee has recommended the trial of a different set of arrangements for speeches on the second reading whereby speeches remain at 20 minutes in length but interventions are permitted after the first 15 minutes. The practice of interventions has proved successful in the Main Committee and, as a result, the committee believes that it would be worthwhile to trial the interventions procedure in a modified form in an attempt to improve interactivity during debates in the chamber. This proposal would allow members 15 minutes free of interruptions, with the possibility of being asked questions related to their speech during the final five minutes of their speaking time. These trial arrangements would not apply to the speeches of the mover of the second reading motion or the lead speaker in response.

The rules for interventions in the chamber would be essentially the same as in the Main Committee. Members can choose whether or not to accept an intervention, interventions must be brief and directly relevant to the speech on the second reading, and the Speaker will have the discretion to rule out of order any intervention that abuses the processes.

I think this is a much better recommendation than the early recommendation because no member is penalised in relation to what they elect to do—whether they elect to take interventions or not take interventions in that 20-minute period. So the discretion is there to take the intervention or not take it; whereas the earlier recommendation really was a substantial change to the existing time for backbenchers in relation to second reading speeches. So I think we have come up with a much better suggestion to the parliament.

If these arrangements are trialled as recommended from the start of the sittings in 2007, I would encourage members to take the opportunity to ask questions during second reading debates and contribute to enhancing the atmosphere of debates in this place. I saw it working in the House of Commons and it was terrific. I commend both reports to the House.

See this speech in context