Senate debates

Monday, 22 November 2010

Committees

Procedure Committee; Report

4:59 pm

Photo of Don FarrellDon Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | | Hansard source

I move:

That the recommendation of the Procedure Committee in its fourth report of 2010, be adopted and operate as a temporary order from the first sitting day in 2011 till 30 June 2011.

Photo of Rachel SiewertRachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

The Greens are very pleased to see the tabling of this particular report by the Procedure Committee. This is an area of reform that we have actively pursued over the last few years, as people in this place will be well aware. We raised it formally with the Procedure Committee in September 2009. The temporary orders are the practical implementation of the pursuit of this and also of the Greens’ agreement with the ALP to form government. The temporary orders require that at least two hours and 20 minutes are dedicated to the debate of and vote on private members’ bills—a fixed and fair allocation of time for Independents’ and minor party members’ business in both houses every full sitting week. The agreement stated 2.5 hours in each house. The House of Representatives has been operating under a new standing order for some weeks, and I think we all agree it has brought a very diverse range of issues, from a broad range of members, to the chamber for consideration.

This reform brings the Senate into line with comparable jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and the New South Wales Legislative Council, all of which have mechanisms in place for debating private members’ business. Until now, the consideration of private senators’ business in this place has been ad hoc, to say the least, and limited. We believe this reform is a welcome development that we intend to make sure is used effectively. The Greens believe it is the prerogative of all elected representatives to bring forward for debate issues which are of importance to them and their constituents. My fellow Greens senators are certainly looking forward to bringing on debate and voting on many bills that we have already introduced in this chamber. We look forward to the temporary orders commencing in the new parliamentary year, next year, although we do not yet know when that starts.

I thank government senators—in particular Senator Evans and Senator Ludwig—opposition senators and the Procedure Committee. I also thank Senator Fifield, who actively participated in trying to find some workable arrangements. The committee had to look at all the options to work out what would work best. I thank senators for their meaningful engagement in the process. I look forward to this temporary order being in place next year and being able to debate private senators’ bills so that we can debate issues in this chamber that are not always on the government’s agenda. I commend the temporary orders to the chamber.

5:02 pm

Photo of Alan FergusonAlan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

I also commend this report to the Senate. The main thrust of this report is to try and accommodate private members’ bills and give them a dedicated timeslot for debate in this chamber. It is important because, in the past, governments and those managing the government’s program have always been able to say that debates on private members’ bills are only possible if time is allocated by the government. It is a move in the right direction to allow private members’ bills to be debated in this chamber.

It is only a temporary order and will require a lot of goodwill between the government, the opposition and the minor parties to make sure that it works smoothly. One thing we could not ensure was that private members’ bills or government bills were treated equally in this place. Initially there was some thought about perhaps putting shorter time limits on speeches or guillotining debate. A whole range of options were put forward. In fact, a private member’s bill is just as important as any other bill that comes into this place and it must be treated equally. A senator may hope that their private senator’s bill reaches fruition in a short time, but that would only be able to be done by agreement, in the same way that many other bills are put through this place, particularly towards the end of the session. By agreement, they are dealt with in an expeditious manner.

I look forward to the trial. I think it can work but, as I said before, it will take a lot of goodwill for it to be as successful as many senators, particularly those from minor parties, would hope it to be. Let’s see how it works. We have six months in the first half of next year to see how it progresses. Individual senators can still only expect to get the opportunity to debate their bills in a ratio of proportionality in this chamber, or close to proportionality—it will not always be exact—but I am sure that, if we go about it in the right manner, this can be a very successful addition to the procedures that we follow in this place. I certainly commend this report to the Senate.

5:05 pm

Photo of Jan McLucasJan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | | Hansard source

The government also agrees with the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. We should all thank the members of the committee. They have worked well together to deliver this reform to the operations of the Senate. The essential purpose, as we know, is to allow private senators’ bills to be debated in an orderly way. That is agreed by all as a sensible way forward. The report said:

The committee emphasises that good will is necessary for the effective operation of the Senate and for the implementation of any procedural change in particular.

We concur with the Deputy President’s contribution earlier. The government welcomes this reform, which we believe will result in the more effective running of the Senate chamber. I commend the report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.