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

I rise to make some comments on the cheeky contribution by the member for Sturt, Mr Pyne, in the discussion of a matter of public importance, which was in the following terms:

The Government’s failure to embrace a Parliamentary reform agenda

I was scheduled to speak on the MPI but time defeated me. As the Leader of the House pointed out, this government brought in the ‘welcome to country’ at the time of the opening of parliament. That was resisted by the former government. This government has brought in a petitions committee, which has enhanced the workings of the parliament and given the public a genuine opportunity to make a further contribution when their petitions have been lodged. We also brought forward an opportunity for Friday sittings, which was basically going to be devoted to backbenchers. As pointed out by the Leader of the House, it is something that I privately thought was a crazy idea because, frankly, if it had been properly used by the opposition, if they had understood it, they could have exploited the Friday sittings. They looked a gift horse in the mouth. They rejected it—and now the horse has moved on. The constitutional questions were not fatal, in my view, but the point is that an effort was made, with no cooperation from the opposition. I have a background as a lawyer and, as I said, when I looked at the idea of the Friday sittings I thought it was being extremely generous to the opposition. It would have also been generous to government members but, on balance, I think the proposition favoured the opposition. In the end, I was part of the government that collectively brought that idea forward.

I was on the Procedures Committee way back in 1993 to 1996, when Neal Blewett brought in a report which led to the establishment of a second chamber for non-contentious legislation. This allowed quality debate to continue in this House on contentious legislation while the non-contentious legislation—the second stream—was debated in the Main Committee. The Labor government introduced that, and the House of Commons—the mother parliament—thought it was so good that it picked it up. Now they have a similar situation in Great Britain based on what a Labor government introduced here.

We are into reform. But what was the 11½-year track record of the former government—the Howard government—on reform? What is so funny is that they are reaping what they sowed. A lot of the things that they are putting forward had been suggested to them when they were in government, but those ideas were dismissed out of hand because they were seen to advantage the opposition. They never, ever thought that they would be in opposition one day. When the Manager of Opposition Business talks about frustration, it is not just about question time; it is about the fact that they lost the election and are not in control.

When it comes to parliamentary reform, you have to look at it not from a government or opposition angle but in terms of what enhances the working of the parliament. Under the Howard government, I saw a number of measures. We saw secretariats who serviced one House committees being forced to service two house committees so that, in effect, the executive would not be as troubled by them because their resources would be split. We saw former Speaker Halverson allow supplementary questions, as was his discretion, at question time. I asked one of the successful supplementary questions to the then Attorney-General, Mr Williams. Subsequently, Speakers of the House were basically warned against allowing supplementary questions. So we do not have them, even though they are in the standing orders.

As a member of a House committee—the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs—some parliaments ago I took advantage of standing order 337, which has been in the orders since 1901. It says:

When a Committee is examining witnesses, strangers may be admitted, but shall be excluded at the request of any Member, or at the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee, and shall always be excluded when the Committee is deliberating.

Opposition members are in a minority on those committees. That standing order was in there to give some level of equality for opposition members so that there could be consensus. But the member for Mackellar went feral when I invoked that standing order. The clerk backed me up on it, but cabinet changed the standing order and members have now lost that right. That is what the former government did. At every opportunity, not only did they not progress the proceedings of this House but they took away existing rights because they saw them as a nuisance.

I want to see reform. In relation to question time I think there needs to be reform—but reform that will benefit the parliament. At the moment it is self-regulation. If ministers speak for too long, I do not think they do too well in terms of the members of the public. (Time expired)