Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As is also standard on the second day of a new parliament, the government is putting forward a series of amendments to the standing orders and a proposed sessional order. For new members, the difference is that the sessional order will apply to the 48th Parliament only, and the standing orders changes are ongoing. I move:

That standing orders 1, 2, 9, 24, 34, 45, 78, 80, 88, 94, 100, 127, 133, 175, 192, 192B, 193, 215, 232, 267 and 268 be amended, standing order 50B be adopted, and sessional order 65A (Opportunities for crossbench Members) 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

The following meanings apply throughout these standing orders.

…

dissolution means the ending of the House, and therefore the Parliament, by the Governor-General before the expiration of three years from the first sitting of the House after a general election.

…

9 When Governor-General does not attend

(a) If the Sovereign attends a meeting to declare the causes for the calling together of Parliament, references to the Governor-General in this chapter shall be read as references to the Sovereign.

(b) If the Governor-General appoints a Deputy in accordance with section 126 of the Constitution to announce the causes for the calling together of Parliament, references to the Governor-General in this chapter shall be read as references to the Deputy.

24 Seats for Members

The Speaker shall determine any dispute about the seats occupied by Members.

34 Order of business

The order of business to be followed by the House is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2. House order of business

45 Order of government business and programming declarations

(a) The Leader of the House may arrange the order of notices and orders of the day for government business on the Notice Paper as he or she thinks fit.

(b) The Leader of the House or the Chief Government Whip may make a programming declaration in the House in relation to one or more items of government business.

The declaration may refer a government business order of the day to the Federation Chamber, or may require a government business order of the day to be returned from the Federation Chamber for further consideration in the House. The matter must be set down for consideration at a later hour that day.

(c) When there is no question before the House, a Minister may move, without notice, that a government business notice or order of the day be called on immediately. The question must be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate.

50b Further statements

(a) Following a statement on a significant matter (standing order 50a) or a statement by indulgence of the Chair, a Minister may move, without notice, that further statements be permitted in the House or Federation Chamber.

(b) The Minister may specify a time for the conclusion of further statements.

78 Matters not open to debate

The following questions and motions are not open to debate, must be moved without comment and must be put immediately and resolved without amendment:

(a) motion that a Member's time be extended (standing order 1);

(b) motion that a specific item of government business be called on immediately (standing order 45(c));

(c) motion that the business of the day be called on (standing order 46(e));

(d) motion that a Member be heard now (standing order 65);

(e) motion that a Member be further heard (standing order 75);

(f) motion that debate be adjourned (standing order 79);

(g) motion that a Member be no longer heard (standing order 80);

(h) motion that the question be now put (standing order 81);

(i) question that the bill be considered urgent, following a declaration of urgency (standing order 82);

(j) motion that a Member be suspended (standing order 94);

(k) question that amendments made by the Federation Chamber be agreed to (standing order 153);

(l) question that a bill reported from the Federation Chamber be agreed to (standing order 153);

(m) motion that further proceedings on a bill be conducted in the House (standing order 197);

(n) question in the Federation Chamber that a bill be reported to the House (standing order 198).

Should any of these questions be negatived, no similar proposal shall be received if the Speaker is of the opinion that it is an abuse of the orders or forms of the House, or is moved for the purpose of obstructing business.

80 Closure of a Member speaking

If a Member is speaking, other than when moving the terms of a motion, another Member may move—

That the Member be no longer heard.

The question must be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate.

88 Use of certain names

A Member must not refer disrespectfully to the Sovereign, the Governor-General, or a State Governor, in debate or for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations.

94 Sanctions against disorderly conduct

The Speaker can take action against disorderly conduct by a Member:

Direction to leave the Chamber

(a) The Speaker can direct a disorderly Member to leave the Chamber for:

(i) one hour; or

(ii) three hours, where there is continued or escalating disorderly conduct.

The direction shall not be open to debate or dissent, and if the Member does not leave the Chamber immediately, the Speaker can name the Member under the following procedure.

Member named and suspended

(b) The Speaker can name a disorderly Member. Immediately following a naming, on a motion being moved, the Speaker shall put the question—

That the Member be suspended from the service of the House.

The question must be resolved without amendment, adjournment or debate.

Urgent action

(c) If the Speaker determines there is an urgent need to protect the dignity of the House, the Speaker can order a grossly disorderly Member to leave the Chamber immediately. When the Member has left, the Speaker must immediately name the Member and paragraph (b) shall apply; except that the Speaker shall put the question for suspension without a motion being necessary. If the question is resolved in the negative, the Member may return to the Chamber.

Term of suspension

(d) If a Member is named and suspended, the term of the suspension shall be:

(i) on the first occasion, for the 24 hour period from the time of suspension;

(ii) on the second occasion during the same calendar year, for the three consecutive sittings following the day of suspension; and

(iii) on a third or later occasion during the same calendar year, for the seven consecutive sittings following the day of suspension.

A suspension in a previous session or a direction to leave the Chamber for one or three hours shall be disregarded in the calculation of these terms.

Exclusion from Chamber and Federation Chamber

(e) A Member who is subject to a direction to leave the Chamber for one or three hours, or a suspension for 24 hours or more, shall be excluded from the Chamber, its galleries and the room in which the Federation Chamber is meeting.

Removal of Member

(f) If a Member refuses to follow the Speaker's direction, the Speaker may order the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the Member from the Chamber or the Federation Chamber or take the Member into custody.

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 Sovereign, 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;

(iv) insults;

(v) 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.

127 Six or fewer Members on a side

If, after the doors are locked, there are six or fewer Members on one side in a division, the Speaker shall declare the decision of the House immediately, without completing the count. The names of the Members who are in the minority shall be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

133 Deferred divisions 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 to suspend any standing or other order of the House moved by a Minister during this period or any division necessary to resolve the question on such a motion.

(b) On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, any division called for from 6.30 pm until the adjournment of the House shall be deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day, except for a division called on a motion to suspend any standing or other order of the House moved by a Minister during this period or any division necessary to resolve the question on such a motion.

(c) Standing orders 80 and 81 shall not apply during a period of deferred divisions.

(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]

175 House bills presented to Governor-General

When a House bill has finally passed both Houses, the Clerk shall certify this and the Speaker shall present the bill to the Governor-General for the Sovereign's assent in accordance with section 58 of the Constitution

192 Federation Chamber's indicative order of business

The normal order of business of the Federation Chamber is set out in figure 4.

Figure 4. Federation Chamber indicative order of business

The meeting times of the Federation Chamber are fixed by the Deputy Speaker and are subject to change. Times shown for the start and finish of items of business are approximate. Adjournment debates can occur on days other than Thursdays by agreement between the Whips.

192b Grievance debate

(a) The order of the day for the grievance debate stands referred to the Federation Chamber and shall be taken as the first item of business each Tuesday.

(b) After the Deputy Speaker proposes the question—

That grievances be noted

any Member may address the Federation Chamber or move any amendment to the question. When debate is interrupted after one hour or if it concludes earlier, the Deputy Speaker shall adjourn the debate on the motion, and the resumption of the debate shall be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

193 Members' three minute constituency statements

During the period for constituency statements by Members, the Deputy Speaker may call a Member to make a constituency statement for no longer than three minutes. The period for Members' constituency statements may continue for 30 minutes on Mondays or 60 minutes on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House.

215 General purpose standing committees

(a) The following general purpose standing committees shall be appointed:

(i) Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water;

(ii) Standing Committee on Communications, the Arts and Sport;

(iii) Standing Committee on Economics;

(iv) Standing Committee on Education

(v) Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations, Skills and Training;

(vi) Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability;

(vii) Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation and Science;

(viii) Standing Committee on Primary Industries;

(ix) Standing Committee on Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport; and

(x) Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs.

(b) A committee appointed under paragraph (a) may inquire into and report on any matter referred to it by either the House or a Minister, including any pre-legislation proposal, bill, motion, petition, vote or expenditure, other financial matter, report or document.

(c) A committee may make any inquiry it wishes to make into annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House. The following qualifications shall apply to these inquiries:

(i) Reports shall stand referred to committees under a schedule presented by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee.

(ii) The Speaker shall determine any question about responsibility for a report or part of a report.

(iii) The period during which an inquiry into an annual report may be started by a committee shall end on the day the next annual report of the department or authority is presented to the House.

(iv) If a committee intends to inquire into all or part of a report of the Auditor-General, the committee must notify the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit of its intention, in writing.

(d) Each committee appointed under paragraph (a) shall consist of 10 members (six government Members, three opposition Members and one crossbench Member). Each committee may have its membership supplemented by up to four members for a particular inquiry, with a maximum of two extra government and two extra opposition or crossbench Members. Supplementary members shall have the same participatory rights as other members, but may not vote.

232 Appointment of committee Chair and deputy Chair

(a) Before the start of business and at any time a vacancy occurs, a committee shall be informed of the name of the member who has been appointed by the Prime Minister to be its Chair. The Chair shall have a casting vote only.

(b) A committee shall elect a member as its deputy Chair. Except as otherwise provided, the deputy Chair shall be a non-government member. The deputy Chair shall act as Chair of the committee whenever the Chair is not present at a meeting. If neither the Chair nor deputy Chair is present at a meeting, the members present shall elect another member to act as Chair at the meeting.

267 Addresses moved

(a) A Minister may move an address to the Sovereign or the Governor-General after notice, except in cases of urgency

(b) A Minister may move without notice an address of congratulation or condolence to members of the Royal Family.

268 Addresses to Queen given to Governor-General

The Speaker shall give to the Governor-General addresses to the Sovereign or to members of the Royal Family, and ask the Governor-General to send the addresses for presentation.

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:

(i) a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth, seventeenth and twenty-first questions; and

(ii) an opposition Member seeking the call on the first, third, seventh, ninth, eleventh, fifteenth, nineteenth, twenty-third, twenty-fifth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-ninth 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 each 60 minute period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least two crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 193).

(f) 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).

(g) 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).

(h) 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).

(i) 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).

For the interest of members, I'll go through the standing orders changes that we're having, after which we will have time for debate, so I'll keep my remarks as brief as I can. But I will let members know when it's time for first speeches, just before 10.30. If the debate is still going, I will move that the question be put, to make sure that we're not delaying the first speeches.

In the debate, as is always the case, on whichever of these standing order changes people are supportive of, they will be completely silent, and, by whichever ones they object to, they will be completely outraged. And that's fine! I've done this too.

The first change—we have time limits on a series of debates, but there's a general rule for where debate is not otherwise provided for. We've had time limits on speeches but not the debate. That would be a standing one-hour limit. Obviously, it's always open to the House to extend that should the House choose to.

Secondly, there are some changes to deferred divisions. At the moment, between 12 o'clock and two o'clock on Tuesdays, if a division is called, it doesn't happen until after the MPI that day. That has created some challenges when we've had urgent legislation to get across to the Senate, where the Senate needed to deal with it. Effectively, if a division is called, even though the House as a majority might want to vote for it, it's unable to do so until after the MPI, by which time the procedure of the Senate doesn't actually match the processes here. For those people who are used to, on a Tuesday, taking off between 12 and two, they'd now, under this standing order change, have to remain in the parliament.

Next, there are some changes to the routine of business for the House and the Federation Chamber, extending the hours of the Federation Chamber, which gives 30 minutes more of government business but 90 minutes more of constituency statements. This is trying to acknowledge something that I've had members from all sides raise with me over time, asking, 'Can we get better use of the Federation Chamber?' in particular for people to be able to talk about issues within their electorate that might not be owed and properly given during other legislative speeches. This would now provide that extra time in both changes for the Federation Chamber.

Ministerial statements, which don't happen often, when they do happen would now happen immediately after question time. In practice, they can still occur at other times of the day, as is already the case, but that would shift to being the standard time for them.

Next is something that was recommended by the Standing Committee on Procedure some time ago: that, Mr Speaker, you be given a new power. Under 94(a), you would have an option of suspending someone for one hour or suspending someone for three hours. This was recommended to me repeatedly during the last term. I strategically waited until Graham Perrett had left the parliament before I was willing to move it! But that was a unanimous recommendation from the procedure committee as part of its inquiry to recommendations 10 and 27 of the Set the standard report.

Next is something that we've been doing but is not covered under the standing orders, adding to the list of resolutions that can be moved by a minister and then get put without debate, which is to bring on an item of business immediately.

The next is the number of votes required for a full division count. If people wonder whether the consultation across the aisle matters, they have the evidence here, because I was going for a much higher number on this. Basically, the rule that we have for when you have to take a full count of a division was put into the standing orders back when the crossbench itself was fewer than five, and, as the crossbench has grown, we have never increased that number. I was minded to increase it to something approximately the current size of the crossbench, but, in the consultation, the arguments that were put to me were such that I thought that, to be true to the spirit of the consultation, I'd still have an increase but, instead of it being four or fewer, it became six or fewer. So there is still a minor increase there, but I will be upfront; I was aiming higher.

The procedure that we have to refer statements to the Federation Chamber gets formalised. It's similar to what we've already been doing.

Next, there is a bizarre standing order—there are a few, but we're getting rid of this one—that a member of parliament is allowed to become so attached to their seat that, after an election, they can just say they're staying. I am supportive of most forms of industrial action, but I find this one particularly odd. There has been some consultation with the Manager of Opposition Business on this, and we will be removing it.

Next, we are trying to bring some of the committees up to date with the complexion of the non-government benches in the parliament. Effectively, the non-government benches now are basically not precisely but close to a ratio of three to one in terms of the opposition versus the crossbench. On the positions of deputy chairs on committees, that has meant, under our current standing orders, that the opposition receive every deputy chair's position, and the three-to-one ratio makes no difference with respect to deputy chairs. The standing order would change so that, for three committees, it would be the committee itself that elects the deputy chair. That does not guarantee that it would be a member of the crossbench, but it creates a pathway for that to happen for the deputy chair's position. They are positions that historically have automatically gone to the opposition, but the number of committees we've chosen to do this for, rather than to do it for all of them, is to make sure that we don't go further than the three-to-one ratio. The committees are the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water; the Standing Committee on Economics; and the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability—these would be the three where the committee would choose its deputy chair.

The next one is the sessional order. Last time we did a sessional order for the first time to give additional questions for the crossbench. In terms of the numbers of the non-government questions, it was the third, seventh and ninth questions where they came in. Occasionally, we would go very long at question time, which the Prime Minister and I always liked but the rest of the frontbench weren't always as mad keen on the idea as we were. When we would go longer, effectively the opposition would get all of those additional questions and the crossbench would get none, so, where we go beyond 10 questions now, there's an additional question for the crossbench when that would happen.

They're the different changes that I have, and I suspect I know the speech that's about to come. If it's like we heard yesterday, it will be about the rights of minorities. Allow me to say I am pleased that the opposition have found a minority they support! I am disappointed that it is themselves.

I commend the motion to the House.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed that is what democracy is all about. The whole tradition of democracy is about the rights of minorities—always has been; always will be—and it should be in a rights based society. That has always been a Liberal principle.

I think the Leader of the House has belled the cat. That all sounds very lovely when you listen to it—how democratic and smooth everything will be and how lovely the parliament will function with these changes to the standing orders. However, taking my leader's instruction, I think we can be constructive on certain machinery changes that the leader has proposed, but then unfortunately I feel like we must be critical about some other changes that the Leader of the House is proposing here. On the veneer of increased transparency and democratic operation, we have some antidemocratic measures that the government is proposing in its first action.

I will say upfront that, as a lifelong constitutional monarchist and a great supporter of our constitutional monarchy and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, while we are still, in my view, in the official mourning period for Her Majesty the Queen, we do accept reluctantly the changes to remove all references to 'the Queen' from the standing orders and replace them with 'the Sovereign', which is the bulk of the work that the leader has put forward in today's standing orders. It's a reluctant but necessary change, so, there you go, we have supported you on something. Even as a constitutional monarchist, I've agreed to that.

To move along, sessional order 65A is of course the real meat of what the government is proposing to change in these standing orders. While government members will be disinterested because they now have a supermajority in this place, the whole purpose of having a question time is scrutiny of the executive, not of the government. It's not of you on the backbench but of these people on the frontbench. The leader referenced that ministers will be happy because they'll be able to get out of here quicker. That isn't the principle of effective, transparent government. In fact, if you're a government minister—and I have been—you should know your brief, you should welcome questions and you should be able to answer those questions. That's the point of being in the parliament, and the parliament has an important function on behalf of Australians to say to the executive: 'What are you doing in government? Can you explain to the Australian people what your legislative and political agenda is?' And you have to defend it in the scrutiny of an open, democratic forum.

In its first term, this Labor government under Prime Minister Albanese reduced the number of questions that we have in question time. The average number of questions asked by the opposition went from 10 in the 46th Parliament, the one that we heard was antidemocratic and not transparent, to just seven in the 47th Parliament. That's a big drop. The average number of questions overall fell from the 46th Parliament to the 47th Parliament, and question time ended before 3.10 pm more often in the 47th Parliament, 29 times compared to only 17 times in the 46th Parliament. We know on many occasions the Prime Minister urgently cut off question time because, simply, it wasn't going very well for the government.

These changes that are proposed by the Leader of the House do something very sneaky. I am sad that he mentioned it but didn't say what this would mean. The heading for these changes is 'more opportunities for crossbench questions'. But the crossbench is under no illusion that the reordering of the numbers is after the cut-off that the Prime Minister usually uses. So there won't be more opportunity for the crossbench to get more questions because, on a normal given day, or when things are going badly for the government, the Prime Minister routinely guillotines question time—as is his right. So there will be fewer opposition questions in this parliament, as there were last parliament, and there will be fewer crossbench questions in this parliament, unless the Prime Minister—it's up to him, of course—decides that he's having a good day and extends question time a little bit longer. That, in our view, is a sneaky attempt to rewrite this to, over time, slowly—not under the scrutiny of anyone who pays a lot of attention except for the most ardent watchers of this place—reduce questions bit by bit. Overall, the average number of questions will go down, opposition questions will go down and crossbench questions will go down. How does that help the operation of this parliament? Our view is that it does not and our view is that this is an antidemocratic measure.

That's my criticism. I will now be constructive; the pendulum is going to swing, and we're going back to 'constructive'. We have some solutions. I move the amendments to the motion moved by the Leader of the House as circulated in my name:

(1) Replace proposed sessional order 65A(a)(i) and (ii) with: (a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and seventeenth questions;

(2) Amend standing orders 1, 45, 97, 100, 101, 104, 105, 183 and 197 as follows:

1 Maximum speaking times

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

45 Order of government business

The Leader of the House may arrange the order of notices and orders of the day for government business on the Notice Paper as he or she thinks fit.

97 Daily Question Time

(a) Question Time shall begin at 2 pm on each sitting day, at which time the Speaker shall interrupt any business before the House and call on questions without notice.

(b) The business interrupted shall be dealt with in the following manner:

(i) if a division is in progress at the time, the division shall be completed and the result announced; or

(ii) the Speaker shall set the time for resumption of debate.

(c) Question Time shall not conclude until at least eight questions have been asked by opposition Members.

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 45 seconds. The duration of each supplementary question is limited to 20 seconds.

101 Speaker's discretion about questions

The Speaker may:

(a) direct a Member to change the language of a question asked during Question Time if the language is inappropriate or does not otherwise conform with the standing orders;

(b) allow up to five supplementary questions to be asked, per question time, to clarify an answer to a question asked during Question Time—one from the Leader of the Opposition, one from any Opposition member, two from government members and one from a crossbench member; and

(c) change the language of a question in writing if the language is inappropriate or does not otherwise conform with the standing orders.

104 Answers

(a) An answer must be directly relevant to the question.

(b) A point of order regarding relevance may be taken only once in respect of each answer.

(c) The duration of each answer is limited to 3 minutes. The duration of an answer to a supplementary question is limited to 90 seconds.

105 Replies to written questions

(a) A Minister's written reply to a question must be delivered to the Clerk. The Clerk shall provide a copy of the reply to the Member who asked the question, and the question and reply shall be published.

(b) If a reply has not been received 60 days after a question first appeared on the Notice Paper, the Member who asked the question may, at the conclusion of Question Time, ask that the Minister concerned present reasons for the delay in answering. The reasons shall be presented by the Minister at the next sitting.

183 Establishment of Federation Chamber

The Federation Chamber shall be established as a committee of the House to consider matters referred to it as follows:

(a) proceedings on bills to the completion of the consideration in detail stage;

(b) orders of the day for the resumption of debate on any motion;

(c) subject to paragraph (a), private Members' notices and other items of private Members' and committee and delegation business referred in accordance with a Selection Committee determination pursuant to standing order 222; and

(d) further statements on a matter when statements have commenced in the House.

197 Return of matters to the House

The Federation Chamber may return a matter to the House before its consideration is completed:

(a) A matter may be returned to the House on a motion moved without notice at any time by a Minister—

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

The motion shall be put without amendment or debate. If the Federation Chamber agrees to, or is unable to resolve, this question, the bill or order of the day shall be returned to the House. Consideration in the House must continue from the point reached in the Federation Chamber and the House must resolve any issues that the Federation Chamber reports.

(b) The House may at any time require a matter to be returned for further consideration, on a motion moved without notice by a Minister. The matter must be set down for consideration at a later hour that day.

(3) Insert sessional order 49A:

49 A Moving a motion of condolence

A motion of condolence may only be moved immediately following Prayers.

We only gave short notice of the amendments I'm moving today ourselves. I apologise to the House for the notice I've given. If we get 20 minutes notice, unfortunately you will get no notice.

The amendments I'm moving do something important in relation to 65A. They return something that has been here before and is in operation of the Senate; that is, they allow for supplementary questions to be asked both by the opposition and the crossbench. This would increase transparency in this parliament. I know many of my crossbench colleagues would support the operation of supplementary questions. Not only would a government minister have to be prepared for a question; they'd have to be prepared for a follow-up question, which can only be a good thing, especially on the complexity of the operation of government in today's society. We have the ability to ask any minister any question, but if they don't answer the question we have no ability to follow that up. This is a sensible reform that will return supplementary questions to this chamber, and I welcome the proposal.

In the previous parliament, the conduct of the government was, as I've highlighted, antidemocratic. In relation to the standing order changes to committees, I—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat for a moment. I will hear from the Leader of the House, on a point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just not sure how to handle this. An amendment is meant to be fully read out unless it's been circulated. I've just checked with the clerks because there is not a copy of the amendments at the table. I'm not sure if they were handed to the Table Office and something has gone wrong, but they certainly haven't been circulated. If the Manager of Opposition Business has to read it out word for word, I'm not sure he will get it out in the time remaining. I'm not sure how we handle it.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can find a way through this. I thank the Leader of the House. The normal process is that amendments will be circulated, as the member for Warringah has done and the member for Wentworth has done. On this occasion, that hasn't occurred. The manager is, I assume, moving the amendments as part of his speech now. They will need to be seconded but we do need a copy of them—normally before we get to this point, if that makes sense. We don't have them as yet; we're making copies now, so we will have them. He has three minutes left and then we'll have a seconder to those amendments, just to find a way through this. The manager has the call.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept that, and I did explain this was a very last-minute process, from the government's point of view, in providing the very substantial standing orders changes, and we did our best to produce amendments very quickly and provide them to the parliament. I've already apologised to members, but we had no idea what the government was doing. Thank you for that reminder about the procedure.

I move back to our conversation about the antidemocratic nature of some of these changes. On committees, that sounds very reasonable: why can't we just share the deputy chairs? The government knows exactly what it is doing in relation to choosing the portfolio areas where it will change the mechanism for electing a deputy chair. That is designed to reduce scrutiny and transparency as well. There was zero consultation with the opposition. I don't know if there was consultation with the crossbench on this issue.

However, the selection of the Standing Committee on Economics is no accident. What the government are saying is that they want less pressure from the opposition on the issue of the economy. They are saying they do not want an opposition member in the deputy chair, asking questions on that committee, raising matters and scrutinising the office bearers that are brought before that committee. And they are saying that of course they want less pressure on the economy. The economy is the No. 1 issue of our day. It is the matter of our time, and the government's agenda on the economy is more government intervention, higher taxes and, of course, an unrestricted commitment to increased government spending—endless government spending! So it's no surprise that the government have said, 'We want to change the procedures on the economics committee.' The economics committee has been a vibrant and important part of our democratic system, and deputy chairs play a vibrant and important part in that. The government are also trying to play politics with parliamentary committees on the topics of their choosing, and we understand why that is. We do not, obviously, support those changes.

In the time I have left, I will refer to a couple of the things that we think are important. I do welcome the Leader of the House's commitment to more speech time. I think that is relevant to this parliament—here and in the Federation Chamber. It's a proposal we welcome and would have put forward, so we support those changes. However, we will have no choice but to oppose the government's amendments.

There are some other matters on which we are moving amendments, including questions in writing. We have increasingly seen a lack of transparency from this government in relation to questions in writing. There are ministers who are failing to respond to this time-honoured mechanism within the prescribed 60 days. According to the Procedure Office, there were more overdue questions in writing in the 47th Parliament than in the 45th and the 46th. This is an executive—just so everyone is clear here—that is not committed to transparency. There will be fewer questions during question time, less scrutiny of government, fewer responses to questions in writing for the parliament. What is going on inside the government? Not only will we have less opportunity to ask; we'll have fewer answers, and we will not know what our own government is doing. So, when the people send us here to do this—and this has happened more in previous parliaments—now we'll have fewer and fewer opportunities under the second term of the Albanese government.

We believe the government's amendments to the standing orders, as they stand, need amendment. Without further time, I will just flag that, while there are some good changes here, we will be opposing the government's amendments.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your time has concluded. For the benefit of all members, I'll explain the process. So everyone is clear, the Leader of the House has moved a series of amendments to the standing orders. The Manager of Opposition Business has replied to that with his own amendments to those suggestions, and they are now available for members to peruse at the table. If members wish to know what the proposed changes are, they can be viewed at the base of the Mace. Now, those amendments to the amendments will be seconded, and they will be seconded by the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Page.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do rise to second these amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. Before a start, I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election yesterday to Speaker, again, with bipartisan support. I think that says a lot about the respect you have in this chamber.

Mr Speaker, I'll start by paraphrasing something you said yesterday that I thought was quite important—I won't quote you because I can't remember the exact words. You spoke about the importance of this chamber to our parliamentary democracy—how important democracy is and how important this chamber is. And you said that you would look to protect and strengthen the democratic processes in this chamber. I firmly believe that's your thought process and that's what you would like this chamber to do. As the Manager of Opposition Business said, there are many things in what the Leader of the House has proposed here that we do support, but there are some things here that will not strengthen parliamentary democracy; they will, in fact, weaken it.

Before I start speaking on the amendments that we are talking about today, I will give some context. Even in the last parliament, some of the changes that were made to the standing orders then by the current Leader of the House didn't protect parliamentary democracy but actually weakened parliamentary democracy in this place. Two that I remember were the changes to the standing orders for the suspension of standing orders and the process of how that works. New members may not be aware that how it used to work when you suspended standing orders was that debate, that process, would happen immediately. The government moved that process be deferred. You lose the impact and you lose the importance of what you're trying to suspend standing orders over when those things are deferred.

The other thing that happened in the last parliament was the change in the standing orders so that legislation could be rushed through. The government put in the proposal that, if things were important, they needed to be moved quickly. It was basically a gag order, and what we saw in the last parliament, really for the first time, and it happened more often than not, was that important legislation was gagged. There was a time limit on it and it stopped, and the legislation went through without necessarily the thorough parliamentary processes and the checks and balances that happened in previous parliaments.

I think this is what's happening again with some of these standing orders that are being proposed today, especially in relation to the questions. I'm going to be really optimistic. I'm going to have the attitude that people on the government side and on the crossbenches are now reading through the amendments and they're going to support this. We saw a lot of goodwill yesterday and they heard your words when you said that you want to protect and strengthen parliamentary process and parliamentary democracy, and I think that they will agree with the Manager of Opposition Business and his amendments, when they read them, because these amendments will do exactly that. They're going to protect and strengthen parliamentary process. There was goodwill and the optimism shown in that chamber yesterday at the start of the new parliament, and I know that the government, when they were elected—not the last time but the time before—wanted to increase parliamentary transparency. They wanted the sun to shine in, and I think that that's what these amendments will do.

Let's just go through a couple of them. I just want to pick up on some of the more important ones. Question time changes are really important. I think that the supplementary question amendments of the Manager of Opposition Business are exceptionally important. This is what happens in the Senate. This is not earth-shattering, and I'm sure the government, when they were in opposition, would have felt this. You might be surprised, but sometimes, when you've asked a question of a minister, you don't really feel as though they've answered the question, and you would like to have the opportunity just to reinforce or to follow up with some extra availability for the minister to answer the question more clearly. The great thing is how good that would be for strengthening parliamentary democracy, so I think the supplementary question idea is a great idea. I know how well the Leader of the House answers his questions and I'm sure that, if you gave him the opportunity to double up and explain his answer even better by asking him a supplementary question, he'd enjoy that. I'm sure he may well change his mind on this amendment and support it to get the opportunity of getting a supplementary question and maybe giving the clarity to an answer that he may not have given, even though he may have thought he had.

As the Manager of Opposition Business also highlighted, the other amendment was a really important process to do with questions, in the sense that the amount of questions that were asked in the last parliament wasn't high by historical standards. We're putting in a proposal here that there be at least eight questions by opposition members in question time. Again, I don't think that's earth-shattering. If ministers are happy with their decisions and happy with how things are going, you would think that they would be happy having more opportunity to get questions from the opposition to explain what's going on, and to have a cap of eight a day doesn't sound a lot to me. Going back to your words, Speaker, it is all about strengthening parliamentary process. I congratulate the Manager of Opposition Business on his appointment, and I know that, in every chat that I've had with the Manager of Opposition Business about his new role, the only words he mentions to me are that he wants to protect and strengthen parliamentary process. Again, having a minimum of eight a day is a very modest ask.

I know that an issue was raised about the Federation Chamber. The Federation Chamber is important, and one of the things we do support the government on is the constituency statements within the Federation Chamber. That's important and gives the opportunity, especially for a lot of new members, to talk about your electorate and people in your electorate and things happening in your electorate. We support that. However, in the last parliament, we saw a lot of things flicked through the Federation Chamber and some important bills were debated up there. The important bills in this place should be debated in here, so putting up changes to this standing order for motions moving something to the Federation Chamber is, again, a very modest request.

The other thing the opposition has been growing concerned about is those who fail to respond with written questions. This is really common in the Senate. In Senate estimates, if a minister gets asked a written question, there is a process for how that is answered and the timeliness of that, and we're seeing that there's no timeliness with that. So, in this amendment ministers are compelled to talk about the reasons they may be delaying answers to questions and having overdue responses to questions.

We agree, we are supporting—again, the bipartisan thing, because this is not all opposition to the proposals by the government today—that in talking to bills the time should be reduced to five minutes. We just think that will increase efficiency and timeliness in the chamber. I think that in talking to a bill most people would be able to say what they need to say in 10 minutes and not 15.

I want to finish off on a change to the name of a House committee. A House committee in the last parliament included the phrase 'resources and northern Australia'. We on this side of the chamber are happy to talk about resources; we on this side are happy to talk about northern Australia. In my role as shadow trade minister, I'm very happy to talk about those two things, too. The export powerhouse of this country is the resources sector. Northern Australia plays an important part in that resources story. It's a very successful story. So, in the House committee that was formed and that existed in the last parliament, we thought it was very important to have that focus of language. Again, I'm sure you have been up there to northern Australia, Speaker. Whether it be iron ore, gas resources, coal resources or agricultural products, I remind this House—and new members, who may not be aware—that coal, iron ore, gas and food are the four biggest exports of this country. Resources is an important sector of our export sector, and northern Australia is a very important part of that. So, hopefully we'll get the opportunity to move a motion later to make sure we have a House committee with the terms 'resources' and 'northern Australia' included.

I will finish my seconding of this motion with great optimism, Speaker, remembering your words yesterday that we want to protect and we want to strengthen parliamentary process and parliamentary accountability in this chamber. I think when people get a good chance to read and digest these amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business there's going to be a light bulb moment on our side as well as the other side of the chamber. These are good amendments. They are going to protect and strengthen parliamentary democracy in this chamber and therefore this country, and I highly recommend them to the House.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Ryan, I'll just explain to the House—there are a number of new members here, so I like to explain what is happening so that everyone is aware, for full transparency, just as the member for Page indicated to the House—we're dealing with a set of amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. Other amendments have been flagged by other members of parliament, and before we get tot those we'll have to deal with one set of amendments at a time. So, with agreement, we're going to deal with the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business to the motion moved by the Leader of the House. So, I'm going to state that question.

The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the honourable member for Mitchell has moved as an amendment further changes to the standing orders. The immediate question before the House is that the amendments be agreed to.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move as an amendment to the motion:

That standing order 91 be amended as follows:

91 Disorderly conduct

A Member's conduct shall be considered disorderly if the Member has:

(a) persistently and wilfully obstructed the House;

(b) used objectionable words, which he or she has refused to withdraw;

(c) persistently and wilfully refused to conform to a standing order;

(d) wilfully disobeyed an order of the House;

(e) persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the Speaker; or

(f) been considered by the Speaker to have behaved in a disorderly manner, including behaviour that is intimidating, harassing or bullying.

This amendment is to make sure that we do, in fact, have a safe and respectful chamber and parliamentary debate. There is a balancing act between robust parliamentary debate and having a safe, respectful and discrimination-free workplace. As parliamentarians, we must lead by example and ensure that freedom of speech is encouraged in our workplace but is not used to excuse harmful behaviour and disorderly conduct. This amendment seeks to clarify what constitutes disorderly conduct in this place so that, when it occurs, it's not left to an interpretation in the moment, which can be difficult, especially if it has not been dealt with in that way in the past under the standing orders—this is for the benefit of the chair—and so that it can be quickly addressed, allowing the debate to return to being productive and allowing MPs to continue with that job.

We know that we have antidiscrimination laws and laws that make it unlawful to have bullying, intimidating and harassing behaviour in a workplace. We know it is unlawful conduct. The difficulty we have is how that then applies in this place, because, at the same time, we have parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege protects members from defamation action for statements made in the chamber; it ensures freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings. However, parliamentary privilege does not override all legal obligations. In fact, it does not protect against discrimination law and does not exempt conduct within the chamber from scrutiny in relation to antidiscrimination principles.

The difficulty is when the bullying, harassing and intimidation is oral—by way of yelling, for example, as I experienced during the previous term of parliament, where the coalition had a mob-like attitude of turning, yelling and trying to intimidate me from continuing with my speech. In any other workplace, that would be unlawful conduct. The difficulty in this place is that parliamentary privilege is seen as an override to the question of those laws applying to that conduct.

So my amendment seeks to make very clear that standing order 91, which relates to disorderly conduct, includes behaviour that is intimidating, bullying and harassing. By making it explicit, it enables and empowers the Speaker to rule very quickly and promptly when intimidating, bullying or harassing behaviour is underway in the chamber. That's why this is really important.

There have been attempts to deal with this through codes of conduct, and we know the previous parliament and the parliament before that have tried to improve respect and conduct in this place. The difficulty is that the code of conduct does not apply in this chamber, because of that interrelation with parliamentary privilege, so it is a balancing act between protecting robust parliamentary debate and ensuring a safe, respectful and discrimination-free workplace. I would argue there have been instances in this place where that has not happened. I've certainly been the subject of it. If we are to commence this new 48th Parliament in a new tone and a new note, I would urge the government to consider this amendment to standing order 91 to make it very clear and explicit, for the benefit of the Speaker in applying the standing orders, that disorderly conduct includes intimidation, harassment and bullying. I think that in this place, as legislators, we have to lead by example. We have to ensure the workplace reflects the values we are legislating for others. We cannot have a situation where our workplace is setting a standard completely different to the one that is applied in workplaces all around Australia. I commend the amendment to the House.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second this motion, and I think that the member for Warringah has outlined very clearly the dilemma that we have for changing the workplace culture in this parliament. What the public see is not what happens in our committees or in our corridors or across the parliament where the code of behaviour does apply. I made reference to this yesterday in my speech commending the Speaker to the position that you hold. This is the kind of amendment that gives the Speaker the tools that the Speaker needs to improve the behaviour in the parliament that will improve the respect that is shown to members and will be in alignment with modern workplace culture across this nation.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond to the amendment itself, and I'll just respond once because there are two amendments that have been circulated. This one deals with giving additional powers to the Speaker by framing things in the negative as to what we want to prevent, and the next one gives similar powers to the Speaker but frames it in terms of what we would want to expect. They frame them differently, but they deal with a similar concept.

Anyone who goes through Practice will see that offensive words are clearly out, offensive gestures are clearly out, but offensive and intimidatory behaviour is not necessarily covered. I think it is fair to say that there is a strong appetite from this parliament and an expectation from the Australian people that that sort of behaviour is just as dangerous and would be considered by the public as just as unparliamentary as the words or the gestures that are already referred to in Practice.

What method is best to deal with this? Do you frame it in the positive or do you frame it in the negative? Do you, in fact, need the power, or is there another method? I don't have a fixed view on that, but I do have a very fixed view that, from my conversations with the crossbench—and I'll put it in these terms—we have often seen a situation where people stand when the chamber is full and a pile on occurs, and this is more directed at the crossbench than any other members in this place. Any observer of that would think they were watching intimidation. Sometimes it will happen to government or opposition members, but I've seen it happen a lot to the crossbench. It is not something we want in the parliament.

What the method is to deal with this, I can't give a guarantee, so the government won't be supporting either this amendment or the next amendment in this motion today. I will undertake to the parliament, though, for both this amendment and the next amendment that, as soon as the Committee on Procedures is formed, I'll be writing to them and asking them to look at this matter and the pathways, whether it's standing orders or whether it's something you as Speaker decide you already have the power to do.

I do think there is an expectation in the parliament that, yes, words can be offensive, yes, gestures can be offensive, but, yes, behaviour can be offensive as well. That doesn't always necessarily involve words or gestures, and it is one of the areas where, as part of us responding to the Kate Jenkins inquiry that came down and in making sure that we are in fact setting the standard and raising the standards of this place, we need to basically ensure that you are empowered to be able to deal with behaviour. So we'll be opposing both amendments, but I wanted to explain, in one hit, the reasons.

Question negatived.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That standing order 91 be amended as follows:

91 Disorderly conduct   

A Member's conduct shall be considered disorderly if the Member has:

(a)persistently and wilfully obstructed the House;

(b)used objectionable words, which he or she has refused to withdraw;

(c)behaved in a manner that fails to treat others with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect;

(d)persistently and wilfully refused to conform to a standing order;

(e)wilfully disobeyed an order of the House;

(f)persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the Speaker; or

(g)been considered by the Speaker to have behaved in a disorderly manner.

Australia has one of the most diverse and successful democracies in the world, and this is something that I think we are all incredibly proud of, but our diversity and the success of this democracy relies on our ability to disagree well. In times of conflict overseas, when we have very strong and very different views about conflicts—which is certainly the case in my community and many communities across the country—there is that need to disagree well and robustly but with dignity, fairness and respect. Those are things that we in this democracy need, and we need to start by showing that here in the parliament. This is the fundamental part of this amendment.

After Brittany Higgins's terrible ordeal in this parliament, the Set the standard report rightly recommended a code of conduct in the parliament that required people to treat people with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect. But this code of conduct does not apply in this House, and that is a problem because this House is where the community sees parliament. Question time in particular is a time when the community sees the standards that the parliament is in theory trying to set, and the standards that the parliament sets in these times are not the qualities of dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect needed when conducting a robust debate. This is why I believe that, as was recommended in the Set the standard report, the code of conduct should apply in the House, as well as all around, because you cannot do one thing in the House and then walk out of the room and say, 'This is how we're going to behave.'

I did a survey recently on bullying in my electorate, and a comment that came back from one of the mothers affected by bullying was, 'My only comment would be for members of parliament to show more respect to political opponents.' Hear, hear! If we start to show that respect in this place, we can engender that in our community. In our schools, universities and communities, I want us to be able to have robust and passionate debates with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect, but, if we're going to hold the community to that standard, we need to start to hold ourselves to that standard as well.

I know the government has proposed a variety of changes to the standing orders to set higher penalties in terms of bad behaviour, and there has been a very welcome change in terms of the gender mix in this parliament. But I don't believe that those are enough, nor do I believe that we should be telling the country that you can hold a robust debate without holding those four qualities in hand at the same time. That is what this parliament should expect of itself, and I think that is what the country expects of us as well.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everyone I speak to in my community about parliament pretty much has the same feedback. That is: why is the behaviour in parliament so appalling? There is a standard of behaviour that's considered acceptable in this room that would not be acceptable in any boardroom, classroom or even clubroom in the country. This is really unacceptable. We had this 2021 Set the standard report; we now have a behaviour code for Australian parliamentarians. People are horrified when I tell them, 'Oh, yeah, that only applies to behaviour outside the chamber.' The expectation that people are treated with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect doesn't apply when we're actually in the House of Representatives, and I don't think that meets community standards. I think there is an expectation that we are able to have civil debate, disagree and have robust discussions on policy matters while treating each other with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect. I would really urge the government to consider making that change to the standing orders so that the new standard of behaviour that we expect outside this room also applies in this room, where Australians actually see us.

If that is not done, and if the government refers it to the procedure committee instead, I would really urge the procedure committee to make recommendations about those changes. I gave evidence to the procedure committee in the last term of parliament on this topic and on the need to increase the level of respect in the chamber, and, as far as I can see, not a lot has happened to develop a positive duty of respect and dignity in the chamber as a result of that evidence. I hope that, if this does go to the procedure committee, they feel empowered to act to lift the standard so that we are actually meeting the expectations of the Australian community in this room.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth and seconded by the member for Curtin be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.