Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate those members who've just been put on the Speaker's panel. I note that it is, I think, the first time ever that two members of the crossbench have been put on the Speaker's panel. I acknowledge the member for Clark and the member for Mayo. It's a significant change and one that I think very much has the support of the House.

I move:

That standing orders 1, 2, 29, 34, 47, 55, 82, 83, 84, 85, 100 and 133 be amended, standing order 50A be adopted, and sessional order 65A be adopted for the remainder of the session, as follows:

1 Maximum speaking times

The maximum time limits that apply to debates, speeches and statements are as follows.

2 Definitions

Private Member means a Member other than the Speaker or a Minister. Crossbench Member means a Member who is neither a government Member nor an opposition Member.

29 Set meeting and adjournment times

(a) The House shall meet each year in accordance with the program of sittings for that year agreed to by the House, unless otherwise ordered and subject to standing order 30.

(b) When the House is sitting it shall meet and adjourn at the following times, subject to standing orders 30, 31 and 32:

Figure 2. House order of business

47 Motions for suspension of orders

(a) A Member may move, with or without notice, the suspension of any standing or other order of the House.

(b) If a suspension motion is moved on notice, it shall appear on the Notice Paper and may be carried by a majority of votes.

(c) If a suspension motion is moved without notice it:

(i) must be relevant to any business under discussion and seconded; and

(ii) can be carried only by an absolute majority of Members, or by a majority of Members present if agreed by the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business.

(d) Any suspension of orders shall be limited to the particular purpose of the suspension.

(e) If a motion for the suspension of orders is moved during Question Time, after the terms of the motion have been proposed by the mover, a Minister may require that further proceedings in relation to the motion take place at a later hour, as set down by the Minister.

50a Statements on significant matters

(a) A Minister may give notice of his or her intention to make a statement on a significant matter and deliver it in writing to the Clerk at the Table.

(b) The notice shall specify the day proposed for making the statement and must be signed by the Minister.

(c) Statements on significant matters may be made after prayers on a Wednesday or Thursday.

(d) After a Minister has made a statement on a significant matter, the House shall be deemed to have granted leave for the Leader of the Opposition, or Member representing, to speak on the same matter for an equal amount of time.

55 Lack of quorum

(a) When the attention of the Speaker is drawn to the state of the House and the Speaker observes that a quorum is not present, the Speaker shall count the Members present in accordance with standing order 56.

(b) On Mondays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House between 10 am and 12 noon, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at 12 noon, if the Member then so desires.

(c) On Tuesdays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House prior to 2 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House after the discussion of the matter of public importance, if the Member then so desires.

(d) On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at the first opportunity the next sitting day, if the Member then so desires.

(e) If a quorum is in fact present when a Member draws attention to the state of the House, the Speaker may name the Member in accordance with standing order 94(b) (sanctions against disorderly conduct).

Debate of urgent matters

82 Urgent bills

(a) A Minister may declare one or more bills to be urgent at any time.

(b) When one or more bills are declared urgent, the question—

That the bill[s] be considered urgent

must be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate.

(c) If the question is agreed to, proceedings on the bill[s] shall follow standing order 85 (proceedings on urgent bills).

83 * * *

84 * * *

85 Proceedings on urgent bills

(a) If one or more bills have been declared urgent, the provisions of standing order 31 will not apply and a single second reading debate on the bill[s] may continue from 7.30 pm until 10 pm that sitting, or earlier if no further Members rise to speak, at which time the Speaker shall interrupt the debate and immediately adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting.

(b) After prayers on the next sitting, each bill will be considered in turn. The question on any second reading amendment and the question on the second reading shall be put without further amendment or debate.

(c) If the second reading of a bill is agreed to and any message from the Governor-General announced, the bill then to be taken as a whole during consideration in detail, if required, without debate, with any government amendments to the bill which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, any opposition amendments which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, and any amendments by crossbench Members which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved as one set per Member, with:

(i) one question to be put on all the government amendments;

(ii) one question then to be put on all opposition amendments;

(iii) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments circulated by crossbench Members; and

(iv) any further questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put without delay.

(d) Standing order 81, providing for the closure of a question, shall not apply to any proceedings to which this standing order applies.

(e) Any division called for during the second reading debate from 7.30 pm until 10 pm that sitting shall be deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day, except for a division called on a motion by a Minister during this period, and, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at the first opportunity the next sitting day if the Member then desires.

100 Rules for questions

The following general rules apply to all questions:

(a) Questions must not be debated.

(b) A question fully answered must not be asked again.

(c) For questions regarding persons:

(i) questions must not reflect on or be critical of the character or conduct of a Member, a Senator, the Queen, the Governor-General, a State Governor, or a member of the judiciary: their conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion; and

(ii) questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons must be in writing.

(d) Questions must not contain:

(i) statements of facts or names of persons, unless they can be authenticated and are strictly necessary to make the question intelligible;

(ii) arguments;

(iii) inferences;

(iv) imputations;

(v) insults;

(vi) ironical expressions; or

(vii) hypothetical matter.

(e) Questions must not refer to debates in the current session, or to proceedings of a committee not reported to the House.

(f) The duration of each question is limited to 30 seconds.

133 Deferred divisi ons on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays

(a) On Mondays, any division called for between the hours of 10 am and 12 noon shall be deferred until 12 noon, except for a division called on a motion moved by a Minister during this period.

(b) On Tuesdays, any division called for prior to 2 pm shall be deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance, except for a division called on a motion moved by a Minister during this period.

(c) On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, any division called for between the hours of 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm shall be deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day, except for a division called on a motion moved by a Minister during this period.

(d) The Speaker shall put all questions on which a division has been deferred, successively and without amendment or further debate.

[and see standing order 85 in relation to urgent bills]

SESSIONAL ORDER

65a Opportunities for crossbench Members

Consistent with the principle that the call should alternate between government and non-government Members and to enable crossbench Members to receive the call in accordance with the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House:

(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and twenty-first questions.

(b) During each period of Members' statements in the House, priority shall be given to at least two crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).

(c) During each period of Members' statements in the Federation Chamber on Mondays, priority shall be given to at least three crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).

(d) During each 30 minute period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least one crossbench Member seeking the call (standing order 193).

(e) During the grievance debate in the Federation Chamber, every second Tuesday priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 192b).

(f) During the adjournment debate in the House, on Tuesdays and Thursdays priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 31).

(g) During the adjournment debate in the Federation Chamber, every second Thursday priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 191).

(h) For the matter of public importance discussion, the Speaker shall have regard to the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House in selecting matters proposed (standing order 46).

Every time we come together after an election, the incoming government reviews the standing orders. This time the context is different. This time, we have all had to deal with the issues that were raised in Set the standard, the report from Kate Jenkins. There are a couple of issues there that relate directly to decisions taken yesterday and, I hope, today by the House. The first is a recommendation about the sitting calendar, asking that school holidays be avoided at all times. With the different states, that's a complex thing to do, but we have done that with the sitting plan that was adopted yesterday. The second issue is how we get through the business we need to get through without doing the absurdly late nights, including the really extreme late nights, that we have sometimes had. How do we sort that out? People, including the people we work with, not just each other, have had to be here in working conditions that are neither healthy nor safe. How do we manage to sort that out but still get through all the business and minimise the number of times that we're gagging debate? All of that has been weighed up in what is in front of you. Change is always controversial—I'm not expecting anything different—but I want to explain how we've got to the recommendations that are in front of you.

The first thing is that, if the House agrees—and I reckon I'll do okay on this one particularly—each day from 6.30 pm there will be no further divisions or quorums. This has come principally from caucus members who've brought young families to parliament. Effectively, what they've had to do every afternoon until now is, when it's time for the child to get to bed, check with the whip as to whether or not they could get a pair on that particular day. I think we can be more decent than that, and the 6.30 pm rule means that, obviously, if you're on duty for your party or you're intending to make a speech, you can't make that unless you're here. But, if people have reason to leave at 6.30 pm, there will be no quorums and no divisions each day after that. And we will plan the program to be able to deal with that. The only time it would be different to that would be if there were a suspension of standing orders, and you'd get plenty of notice if something like that were going to happen. And, with the other standing orders you'll see, I'm trying to create a situation where we don't need to suspend standing orders, where we have other ways of effectively getting release valves on different pressures. That's in response to recommendation 27 of the Jenkins review.

The other thing is that today will be the last day on which we start at 9.30. On Wednesdays and Thursdays we will now have 9 am starts. One of the things that has gradually crept up is that there are often times where there are speeches that ought be given the dignity of the House, and the start of question time is the only avenue we have to be able to do that at the moment. So there'll be a new procedure, and we'll see how it goes. On Wednesday and Thursday mornings, ministers can put forward an issue—it may be that someone notable has passed away, for example, and you wouldn't normally have speeches at the beginning of question time, but, for the dignity of the House, it's appropriate that a reference be made. There would be a speech from each side, and then there would be the normal resolution sending it to the Federation Chamber, if more people want to be able to speak on that issue. These statements won't always happen, but when they happen they'll be on Wednesdays and Thursdays. And at all times from now on we will start at 9 am rather than 9.30 am on Wednesdays and Thursdays. So those are the statements on significant matters and the changes to sitting times.

The next issue is with respect to urgent bills. I've had some conversations this morning about some aspects of this, and I suspect there'll be some debate about it. I'm very keen to hear what members put forward, to see if we can find something that works for as many people as possible, but I'll leave that debate to take its course in a few moments. Up until now the only option that was available, realistically, when a government needed to get a bill across to the Senate was that the Leader of the House walked in here, having made a call, seconds before arriving, to the Manager of Opposition Business, and moved that the question be put. Then everybody who was on the speaking list from then on suddenly discovered their chance to speak had disappeared. Everybody who'd hoped to move an amendment found that their amendment wouldn't ever be moved and that the House wouldn't even get to determine it. That's been the only process that was available when a government needed to send something across to the Senate.

There have been arguments made back and forth, which I made when I was in a different job, as to whether a bill was, in fact, urgent, and no doubt those debates will still happen. But I want there to be another method that effectively allows us to acknowledge that there are times when something is urgent. I don't want the immediate cut-off of debate to be the only option in front of us. So, what I've put forward—and I understand there'll be further discussion on this during the debate—is a concept where the House will vote that a bill be declared urgent, so it will still be a decision of the House. Once it's declared urgent, speaking times go from 15 minutes down to 10. Previously we've asked people, 'Can you shorten your speeches?' and realistically not many of us are good at shortening our speeches unless the time limit changes.

A government member interjecting—

That's right. It's meant to be a limit, not a target, but we're all guilty on this one. So the time limit would immediately go from 15 minutes down to 10, and the second reading debate on the bill would continue until it was finished, up until 10 pm that night. You would only, obviously, stay past 6.30 if you were planning to make a speech, and, because of that, some people may well drop off the list. But at least it means that, instead of it being an immediate cut-off, with no-one getting a chance to speak after that, we would have a situation where as many people as possible would get to speak. So, instead of an immediate gag, it becomes an effective one, with shorter speaking times through to 10 pm that night. The procedure that would then happen is that we would do the votes the next morning.

In terms of how you vote on amendments, the voting proposal that I'm putting forward to the House is the same one that we used some years ago on climate bills. It was used when we were in office previously and it's been used on occasions since then by the previous government. The procedure is that amendments are voted on en bloc. Effectively, if there are government amendments, they're all voted on together. If there are opposition amendments, they're all voted on together. If there are crossbench amendments, you actually can't vote on all of them together. Because they're coming from different perspectives, they could interact in a way that becomes nonsensical. You need to deal with them separately, so that is what would happen the following morning. What I put forward is that those votes happen immediately after the second reading vote on the following morning, but I understand there will be discussion about that; let's see how that debate goes. That's the concept on urgent bills. It won't happen every time, but I'm trying to minimise the number of times that I walk in here and just say, 'We need it through straightaway,' and we're here for half an hour getting angry with each other, with no escape valve where people have had a final chance to make speeches and put their views on the record. I want people to be able to put their views on the record as much as possible.

We then go to the issues relating to question time. First of all, the 45-second rule that was there for crossbench is gone. Everyone goes to 30 seconds. There is one member not here, but the member who's not here does have the status of being the Father of the House, so there are normal nuances that apply there anyway. But all questions go back to 30 seconds, as it used to be. As with all speaking times, often the time will be much briefer than that, just as answers will often be briefer than the three minutes.

We need a new way to be able to deal with the order of who gets to ask questions. The way that it has worked for the last 10 years presumes a much smaller crossbench than we now have. So what I am proposing to the House—and I know this is controversial, because I've read the media comments—is that we go back to the ordinary process of starting with a non-government question, going to a government question and then just going back and forth, but within that there will be three questions that are designated for the crossbench. If more than one crossbencher jumps at a time, it's for the Speaker to judge who jumps first, but if that's organised then obviously it will just be whoever jumps. The standing orders describe where those numbers for crossbench questions are in the total number of questions. I think it's the fifth, 13th and 21st questions in question time. In terms of non-government questions, that effectively means the third question, the seventh question and the 11th question on the non-government side. That's part of the reason why the crossbench question has been pulled back from 45 seconds to 30. It used to be that you had no chance to follow up, whereas now there are later chances. I think the argument for the 45-second question is sort of fixed by having more crossbench questions.

We also have a sessional order here that deals with other forms of the House. In every form of the House—the number of questions, speaking times, the number of speeches for adjournment and things like that—there's nothing that comes out at exactly the percentage or proportion of the crossbench of the non-government benches, so effectively the number of questions in question time is actually a bit more than is proportionate for the size of the crossbench. In return, the number of adjournment speeches and other speeches falls a little bit below the proportion of the crossbench, and that's just because you can't get the percentages coming out in an exact form.

For question time, there is a new issue that we have to deal with, which is what happens when the opposition want—as from time to time they will—to be able to suspend standing orders during question time. Last term that never resulted in speeches being made. Certainly I can say it will sometimes now result in speeches being made, but not every time. You need to do the big dramatic build-up with production values to get that sense of urgency. But, if that happens, there will be times when we allow the debate to flow.

The problem has been that, even if the government of the day decides to not let the debate occur, that then results in a series of four or five divisions—on one occasion it was six or seven because it kept getting the procedure wrong—which effectively knocks out the rest of question time. If an opposition did that and knocked out only their own questions, it would be their own call, but now if they did that it would mean that the crossbench opportunity for later questions would also be knocked out. So I'm proposing a new procedure where there would be a third option. Instead of letting the debate flow or moving that the member be no longer heard, there will be a third option that simply says, 'I require that this motion be moved straight after question time, be moved at a later moment.' So the opportunity to make a speech will still happen, but it won't happen in a way that actually prevents the crossbench from being able to ask their questions. Although, from time to time, if we accept it and we move into the full debate, that will mean that other questions are lost, I want to make sure that that's not the only option in front of us.

So with all of that I hope I have explained both what will happen under what is proposed and is on the Notice Paperand the reasons for it. I'll start with what's behind all of this. I want us to have more debates. I want us to spend less time voting on whether or not we're allowed to debate and more time having the arguments that we are paid to come here and have. There will be moments when it is all agreement and nice—and that's fine—but I am not afraid of when there are moments of disagreement. The government wants that. Those opposite have been elected to represent their constituencies too. The crossbench have been elected to represent theirs. Under these proposals we will get a lot more time for people to be able to represent the people who sent them here than we have had for a very long time in this parliament. I commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context