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

On behalf of the Procedure Committee, I present the committee’s report entitled Learning from other parliaments: study program 2006, together with the minutes of proceedings and a supplementary CD.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

In April this year several members of the Procedure Committee participated in a study tour to a number of overseas parliaments. I thank the member for Charlton, who is in the chamber today, and the members for Chifley and Cowper for their enthusiastic participation, as well as the Chief Government Whip, the member for Macquarie, who joined us for part of the trip. I would also like to thank the Clerk for approving the participation of the secretary to the Procedure Committee, Ms Judy Middlebrook.

The group visited Westminster, London; the Scottish parliament, Edinburgh; the National Assembly for Wales, which is located in Cardiff; the Isle of Man, to visit the Tynwald; and, finally, Paris, to visit the National Assembly.

The title of this report, Learning from other parliaments, captures one of the main themes of the visit. We have a tendency, I think, to assume that our way of doing things is fine as it is—and, for the most part, it is. Our practices and procedures have worked well, but that does not mean our system is perfect. We can learn from the experience of other parliaments. In the time available today, I would like to focus on two issues that impressed me during the study tour: the petitioning process and making the parliament more interactive. These are two areas where I think we can be more innovative and enhance the way we operate.

As part of its 1999 report It’s your House, the Procedure Committee examined the petition process. One of the concerns the committee had at that time was improving follow-up action once a petition had been lodged. People sign petitions believing that they are an important way of informing the government and the parliament of their views on a particular issue, and they expect that some action will eventuate. While numerically large petitions may get some publicity because of their size, most petitions are recorded in Hansard and there is no obvious follow-up action or response from government. Has the petition had any influence? It is impossible to say with any certainty.

The Scottish parliament’s method of dealing with petitions appeared to us to be quite revolutionary. They have established a nine-member Public Petitions Committee that considers, firstly, whether the petition is admissible: is the subject or problem raised in the petition within the power of the Scottish parliament to address? If so, the committee then considers what action should be taken on the petition.

Petitioners may be asked to appear before the committee at a public hearing, other individuals or organisations may be invited to give their views on the petition, and the committee writes to the relevant minister asking him or her to respond to the issues raised. In the Scottish experience, ministers respond very positively to invitations to discuss matters raised in the petition.

We heard of a number of instances where the petitioning process in Scotland resulted in specific government action on the matters raised, and these are detailed in the report. While the Scottish model may not necessarily be an exact fit for the Australian system, there is much to commend the way it has reinvigorated this very traditional method of raising grievances.

The second issue I would like to touch on briefly is that of encouraging a more interactive chamber. We have all heard the criticisms about debate in this place, that it too often consists of members reading overly long speeches to an all but empty chamber and then leaving at the end of their contribution. During our visit to the House of Commons the group was very surprised to learn that any member wanting to participate in a debate is expected to be present during the whole debate. A premature departure would not be conducive to the member getting the call on a future occasion.

The length of speeches also has an impact on the extent to which debate is lively and interactive. The average length of a speech on legislation in Scotland, for example, is six minutes. In France speech times are allocated to a political group, which then allocates the time amongst its members. Members may have to share as little as 15 minutes. While I am not advocating either approach, I remind the House that the Procedure Committee in a previous report recommended that second reading speeches be reduced from 20 to 15 minutes, with the balance of the time available for questions and answers. Unfortunately, that recommendation was not accepted at the time.

I would like to conclude with a word of thanks to all members and staff of the parliaments we visited who were so generous with their time and expertise. I am sure that the benefits of the visit will continue to be reflected in the work of the Procedure Committee during the remainder of this parliamentary term and into the future. I commend the report to the House.

Kelly Hoare (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be invited to speak today, with my good friend the member for McPherson, at the tabling of this report entitled Learning from other parliaments, which has arisen out of the study program embarked upon by the majority of members of the Procedure Committee during the Easter break this year.

The idea of a Procedure Committee study tour evolved out of discussions towards the end of last year. The committee over the years has tried to pursue investigations into various issues relating to the procedures of our parliament. These have included petitions—the effectiveness or otherwise of them, whether we should have processes in place to enable electronic petitions and how and wether the issues raised in petitions should be acted upon or followed up; the benefits or not of electronic voting in the chamber; the scheduling of votes at a particular time during the day; whether we as members of this chamber have sufficient opportunity to fully scrutinise the legislation which comes before us;  and the involvement of members of parliament in the administration and resourcing of the parliament and its committees: should we have more involvement and how much involvement should we have? They have included the processes of question time—how can the government be made to respond appropriately and relevantly to questions and be held accountable for decisions made or policy areas pursued; the election processes for the Speaker—who should conduct the election of the Speaker and what should be the eligibility requirements of that person; and pursuing more opportunities for backbenchers to speak in the parliament.

It was agreed amongst committee members that we would use our individual study leave entitlements to visit various parliaments and chambers in the United Kingdom and Europe. We thank the Clerk of the House of Representatives for approving the participation of the secretary, Judy Middlebrook, and we also thank her for the time, effort and diligence in her guidance and support to us in the program preparation and the conduct of the visit. If it were not for Judy, I doubt whether the study tour would have been as productive as it was or yielded so many opportunities. I understand Judy is recovering from an operation, and I take this opportunity to wish her a full and speedy recovery. We look forward to having her back with us in the Procedure Committee in the near future.

The program we set ourselves was ambitious. As outlined in our key themes, we visited and studied the procedures of six chambers: the House of Commons and the House of Lords, from where our own bicameral system has evolved; the Scottish parliament, a relatively new parliament; the Tynwald, on the Isle of Man, which some would argue is the longest continuing running parliament in the world; the Welsh National Assembly, one of the most technologically advanced parliaments; and the French National Assembly. While we as a committee held fairly firm views on the major areas we would like to study, the program in each of the parliaments was put together by the staff of those parliaments, and I would like to thank those people for their effort and goodwill in providing fulfilling programs and also for their warm hospitality.

During our visit we also discovered and learnt about things we did not know we needed to know, as is pointed out in the report. We learnt about different ways of being able to communicate with the public, within the chamber, throughout the public areas of the building and also out in our communities. We learnt about the use of technology, ranging from electronic voting to having computer technology within and out of the chamber and the use of information screens throughout the building. We also looked at ways in which we could endeavour to have a more interactive process in the chamber during debates to make that time more effective and relevant for those members participating. The study tour and this report provide a strong basis to pursue many of these issues relating to procedures in our own parliament as we continue to ensure that our procedures help to facilitate continuing good representation for our constituents and to ensure our democratic processes.

Finally, I would like thank all of those who participated in the study tour: the chair, the member for McPherson, Margaret May, and her husband David; the member for Chifley, generally known as the father of procedures, Roger Price, and his wife Robyn; the member for Cowper, Luke Hartsuyker, and his wife Irene; the Chief Government Whip, Kerry Bartlett, and his wife Christine; and Judy Middlebrook, whom we all know. I thank you all for your goodwill, your good humour and your continuing friendship and in particular for extending that support and friendship to my daughter Naomi. I commend the report to the House.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for McPherson wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Question agreed to.

In accordance with sessional order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.