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

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

by leave—I move:

That the House take note of each of the reports.

Question agreed to.

Debate adjourned.