|
|
Report
-
On 4 June 1997 the Procedure Committee resolved to conduct an inquiry
into whether Members need more opportunity to make short speeches
on unspecified matters of concern to them and, if so, whether the
Main Committee could be used for this purpose.
-
This inquiry was prompted by a letter from a Member (Mr M T Brough
MP) which noted the limited opportunities for Members to speak in
the adjournment debate in the House, and which sought the committee's
consideration of an adjournment debate being made available in the
Main Committee. The committee also noted a private Member's notice
of motion (Hon L R S Price MP) proposing that the Main Committee meet
between 1 pm and 2 pm on Monday and Tuesday for the purpose of Members'
constituency statements.
-
At present, Members' regular opportunities to raise constituency
matters in the House are during the adjournment debate (30 minutes
each day, 5 minute speeches), grievance debate (80 minutes each Monday,
10 minute speeches) and Members' statements (15 minutes each Monday,
90 second speeches). Other opportunities are the second reading debate
of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) each year, and the Address in Reply
debate at the commencement of each Parliament.
-
The committee noted that when formation of the Main Committee was
originally recommended by a previous Procedure Committee in the About
Time report, it was envisaged that the second chamber would only
deal with “uncontested” government legislation. Over time
and with the benefit of experience of the Main Committee's functioning,
this limitation was modified. Nowadays the Main Committee also deals
with ministerial statements and parliamentary committee reports, innovations
which have significantly extended the opportunities for Members to
contribute to public debate on a wide range of important issues.
-
The committee considered that a further extension of the type of
business which may be conducted in the Main Committee could provide
Members with more time to speak on constituency matters or on other
topics of concern to them. However, such an extension would result
in some change in the Main Committee's nature. The unpredictability
of the subjects which could be raised in the types of debates being
envisaged (adjournment/constituency speeches) would mean that “controversial”
subjects might arise. Therefore the committee's objectives in this
inquiry were to ascertain the demand for additional opportunities
for constituency speeches and to consider how appropriate provision
for them might best be made without compromising the functions of
the Main committee.
-
In June 1997 the committee circulated a questionnaire to all Members
seeking their views on the subject. Appendix 1
details the questionnaire and Members' responses to it. In summary,
fifty-seven Members responded and several added extra comments. The
committee thanks all those who participated.
-
Nearly 80% of Members who responded to the committee's questionnaire
felt that their present speaking opportunities were not sufficient
for them to raise matters which are important to them and their constituents.
-
Of the options given in the questionnaire, Members' strongest preference
(86% of responses) was for an extension of the sittings of the Main
Committee on Wednesdays and Thursdays—its usual days of meeting—for
half hour adjournment debates. There was also majority support (63%
of responses) for additional one hour sittings of the Main Committee
on Monday and Tuesday specifically for constituency statements. However,
when asked to indicate a choice between the two, Members clearly favoured
the former (51%) over the latter (19%). In relation to the length
of speaking time, the majority preferred 5 minutes (47%) to 3 minutes
(16%).
-
The majority of Members (61% of responses) also supported additional
opportunities for Members' 90 second statements.
-
After considering Members' responses, the ramifications of changed
procedures with respect to the standing orders of both the House of
Representatives and the Main Committee, and the experience to date
of the effect of dual chambers on Members' opportunity to speak in
debates, the committee concluded that it would be preferable to extend
to the Main Committee an existing, well-tested House of Representatives
procedure (adjournment debate), rather than create a completely new
procedure (constituency statement). In other words, it would be administratively
and procedurally simpler if the existing adjournment debate procedures
could be adopted, with as little difference as possible, in the Main
Committee. The committee also thought that support for 90 second statements
was sufficiently strong for provision to be made for them to be trialled
in the Main Committee.
-
When the Main Committee was established in 1994, it was recognised
(both in the Procedure Committee's About Time report and in
the remarks of Members in the House) that it could work only if its
business was confined to uncontroversial or uncontested matters. The
guiding principle in formulating the standing orders for the Main
Committee was to ensure that it would operate on a mutually cooperative
basis. (It has been demonstrated on a number of occasions that controversy
can have the effect of rendering the Main Committee unproductive and/or
compromise its functions.)
-
Given that the nature of an adjournment debate is different from
the various forms of debate which have been conducted in the Main
Committee to date, the inclusion of an adjournment debate procedure
in the Main Committee could affect the manner in which the Main Committee
functions. For this reason it was felt that, in the first instance,
any new procedure should be trialled—by means of a sessional
order—on only one day each week. The committee therefore proposes:
- a Main Committee adjournment debate should be scheduled each Thursday
on which the Main Committee meets;
- the debate should last for a maximum of 30 minutes;
- speech time limits should be 5 minutes;
- there should be provision for a Minister to be able to respond
to matters raised, and, if necessary, for the debate to be extended
for 10 minutes to do so.
If the trial is successful, consideration should be given to formalising
it in the standing orders, and also to extending it to Wednesday Main
Committee meetings.
-
Whilst standing order 48A fixes specific times for the commencement
time of adjournment debates in the House, different standing orders
for an adjournment debate in the Main Committee would be required
because of the unpredictability of the times at which the Main Committee
adjourns.
-
The hours of meeting of the Main Committee are not prescribed in
the standing orders. (Indeed, whether the Main Committee meets at
all depends on the House referring business to it.) Meeting times
are fixed by the Deputy Speaker, subject to the requirement that the
Main Committee may only meet while the House itself is sitting. So
far as it has an established routine, the Main Committee meets between
10 am and 1 pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays. However, these meetings
may finish prior to 1 pm, extend beyond 1 pm, or be suspended
at 1 pm and resumed later in the day. In addition, the Main Committee
sometimes meets on Monday or Tuesday. When the Main Committee meets
other than at its `regular' times, the starting and finishing times
of the meeting are flexible, being adjusted to suit the amount of
business in hand.
-
In practice the Main Committee does not meet during periods when
all or the majority of Members expect or are expected to be in the
Chamber of the House. One such occasion is question time—meetings
of the Main Committee are therefore adjourned or suspended in time
for Members to attend question time at 2 pm. Any Main Committee adjournment
debate occurring prior to question time would need to commence sufficiently
early to meet this requirement. Further, matters could be raised in
an adjournment speech to which a Minister may wish to respond. Given
that Ministers are expected to attend every question time and may
also need to have time to prepare for it, the timing of any Main Committee
adjournment debate would need to take account of these needs.
-
Since the time of rising of the Main Committee is variable, rather
than the standing orders specifying a particular time for the Chair
to put the question on the adjournment (as is the case with the House),
the question could be put 30 minutes prior to the scheduled end of
a meeting—say, at 12.30 pm. This should not cause a problem because
the intended times of meeting and adjournment of the Main Committee
are, in practice, negotiated and known in advance (a draft weekly
program is issued by the Parliamentary Liaison Officer).
-
Members may consider it desirable for this advance knowledge to have
a more official status. (Current practice is for the Deputy Speaker
to announce in the House the time fixed for the next meeting of the
Main Committee, except when that time has been announced at the time
of the Main Committee's previous adjournment.) If so, the Deputy Speaker
could formally announce both the meeting and the anticipated adjournment
times, and times for all the week's meetings rather than for only
the next meeting.
-
Although the committee is proposing, at this stage, that an adjournment
debate take place only on Thursdays, it sees some advantage in having
more predictability in all the sittings of the Main Committee. Such
an arrangement would also mean that the process for adjourning the
Main Committee each day would be procedurally the same, regardless
of whether the question was open to debate or not.
-
The possibility of the Government wanting to delay the commencement
of an adjournment debate could arise—particularly if the Main
Committee is still debating a bill which the Government needs to have
finalised that day—when the scheduled adjournment debate time
occurs. When such an occasion occurs in the House, the procedure is
for the adjournment motion to be negatived when the Chair proposes
it. The motion “That the House do now adjourn” can subsequently
be moved by a Member when debate on the bill is concluded. Negativing
the adjournment motion would work in the Main Committee only if there
was agreement between the Government and the Opposition that that
course of action was appropriate. It should be emphasised that the
Main Committee can only ever function satisfactorily if mutually acceptable
arrangements for the conduct of business are made by both the Government
and the Opposition before it meets, and those arrangements are adhered
to by all Members.
-
The following provisions currently apply to the adjournment of the
Main Committee:
Any Member may move the adjournment of the Committee, without
notice (SO 274(c))
In practice the motion for the Main Committee to adjourn has been
moved by a Member at the time the meeting was scheduled to finish.
The committee is proposing that, in normal circumstances, the question
on the adjournment be put by the Chair at the scheduled time without
the necessity for a Member to move the motion. However, should business
for the day be completed prior to the scheduled time, it would still
be necessary for a Member to move the adjournment motion.
The Chair shall adjourn the Main Committee on the adjournment
of the House (SO 274(d))
This provision should not be changed.
The Main Committee shall stand adjourned at the completion of
all business referred to it by the House (SO 274(e))
This provision would need to be altered or omitted to accommodate
an adjournment debate in such circumstances.
The unresolved question provision (SO 276)
As Main Committee procedures currently operate, if any Member dissented
from the Chair's ruling on the putting of the question for the adjournment,
the question would be unresolved and a matter to be reported to the
House. This would be unsatisfactory.
-
The committee recommends:
-
that an adjournment debate be scheduled on each Thursday on
which the Main Committee meets;
-
that the debate commence either 30 minutes prior to the time
nominated for the Main Committee's adjournment or on the completion
of all business scheduled for the day, whichever occurs earlier;
-
that, where appropriate, the procedures applying to the adjournment
debate in the House apply, namely a maximum debate length of 30
minutes, speech time limits of 5 minutes, and provision for the
debate to be extended to permit Ministers to respond to matters
raised;
-
that the Deputy Speaker fix the adjournment as well as the
meeting times of the Main Committee, and that the times fixed
for each sitting week be announced in the House at the start of
the week.
-
Taking into account the considerations discussed above (paragraphs
11—20), the committee proposes that its recommendation be implemented
by the following changes to the standing orders:
- Add to SO 273
-
For each sitting week, the starting and finishing times of each
proposed meeting of the Main Committee shall be announced in the
House prior to the first item of business on the first sitting
day of that week. Any subsequent changes to these times shall
be announced to the House at the earliest opportunity.
- Replace SO 274(e)
-
Upon completion of consideration of all matters referred to the
Committee by the House, or, on a Thursday, thirty minutes prior
to the time fixed by the Deputy Speaker for the adjournment of
the Committee, the Chair shall propose the question `That the
Committee do now adjourn'.
- New SO 274A
-
The question `That the Committee do now adjourn' shall be open
to debate on Thursdays:
Provided that:
- (a)
- if, on the question `That the Committee do now adjourn' being
proposed, a Member requires the question to be put forthwith
without debate, the Chair shall forthwith put the question;
- (b)
- any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time
of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for
the next sitting, and
- (c)
- if the question `That the Committee do now adjourn' is negatived,
the Committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which
they had been interrupted:
Provided further that, after the debate on the question `That
the Committee do now adjourn' has continued for 30 minutes, or
continued until 1 pm, or at the time fixed by the Deputy Speaker
for the adjournment of the Committee, whichever first occurs,
the Chair shall interrupt the debate, at which time—
- (d)
- a Minister may require that the debate be extended for 10
minutes to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised
in the preceding adjournment debate; on the expiry of 10 minutes
or upon the earlier cessation of the debate the Chair shall
forthwith adjourn the Committee until the time of its next meeting,
or
- (e)
- if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (d) the
Chair shall forthwith adjourn the Committee until the time of
its next meeting.
No amendment may be moved to the question `That the Committee
do now adjourn' on any day.
- Add to SO 276
-
Provided that, if the question `That the Committee do now adjourn'
is unresolved, it shall be deemed to have been resolved in the
affirmative.
-
The committee has had statistics collated on Members' use of the
90 second statement period since 1988 (when the procedure was first
introduced). These are attached at appendix 2.
-
The record shows that about 50% of Members have used the procedure
in each Parliament and that most of the Members using the procedure
have used it between one and three times per Parliament.
-
Taking into account the 63% support for an extension of opportunity
for 90 second statements, as shown by questionnaire responses, the
committee proposes that the House consider a trial in the Main Committee
of an additional period for these statements.
-
The committee does not envisage that the additional opportunity for
Members' statements would be provided out of existing sitting time.
Instead it proposes that the Main Committee meet 15 minutes earlier
on Thursdays for Members' statements.
-
The committee recommends that the Main Committee meet at 9.45
am on Thursdays and sessional orders be adopted to provide for Members'
90 second statements until 10 am in the Main Committee, the business
of the day to be called on at 10 am or earlier if no Member rises
to make a statement.
-
The committee proposes that its recommendation be implemented by
the insertion of the following new standing order:
- New SO 275A
-
Notwithstanding standing order 275, when the Main Committee meets
before 10 am on a Thursday, the Chair shall first call statements
by Members. A Member, other than a Minister, may be called by
the Chair to make a statement for a period not exceeding 90 seconds.
The period of Members' statements may continue for a maximum of
15 minutes or until 10 am whichever is the earlier.
Kathy Sullivan
Chair
29 September 1997
|
|
