2.1
This chapter contains items that the committee has observed during the 46th Parliament. For two items, standing order amendments are proposed. In other cases, the committee notes how the House has responded and any new practices adopted.
Petitions – announcement and publication of ministerial responses
2.2
Under SO 209(b), Ministers are expected to respond to a referred petition within 90 days of its presentation to the House, by lodging a written response with the Standing Committee on Petitions. SO 209(c) then requires the Chair of the Petitions Committee to announce any ministerial response to the House. Only after this shall the response be printed and published.
2.3
As responses must be presented to the House before they are published, delays can occur when there are lengthy non-sitting periods or when there are public holidays on Mondays. For example, the first opportunity for a ministerial response considered by the committee at its 24 March 2021 meeting to be presented to the House was 12 May 2021. In that case there would have been 49 days between the committee’s consideration of the response and the response being made publicly available to all petitioners.
2.4
Following consultation with the Petitions Committee, the committee considers that an effective way to shorten the timeline for publication of ministerial responses would be to amend SO 209(c) to enable the Petitions Committee to authorise publication of a ministerial response prior to presentation to the House. The response would then need to be presented to the House at the first available opportunity following publication.
2.5
That SO 209(c) be amended as follows:
The Chair of the Petitions Committee shall announce any ministerial responses to petitions. After the announcement, ministerial responses shall be printed in Hansard and published on the House’s website. The Petitions Committee may authorise the publication of a ministerial response prior to presentation to the House, and it must then be presented at the first available opportunity.
Opening day – procession of Members
2.6
SO 4 sets out some of the procedures for the Parliament’s first meeting after a general election. This includes provision for Members to attend the Governor-General, led by the Speaker.
2.7
On opening day, following the election of the Speaker, the Prime Minister informs the House of the time at which the Governor‑General will receive the Speaker, and the sitting is then suspended. At the appointed time, Members assemble in the Chamber before proceeding to the Members’ Hall, where the Speaker attends the Governor-General. The Speaker then leads Members back to the Chamber in procession.
2.8
Members are currently required to proceed from the Chamber on two occasions on the afternoon of opening day—once when attending the Speaker’s presentation to the Governor-General and the other when subsequently attending the Senate Chamber to hear the Governor-General’s speech. Previous Procedure Committee inquiries into the arrangements for opening day have noted that some Members have found this disruptive or confusing.
2.9
It had been practice for Members to be introduced to the Governor‑General, if they wished, when the Speaker was presented. However, since the opening of the 45th Parliament, Members are no longer introduced to the Governor‑General at this time. Accordingly, the committee recommends that the requirement for Members to accompany the Speaker be removed from the standing orders.
2.10
Removing this requirement for Members would provide the opportunity to streamline opening day procedures.
2.11
The Committee notes that Members who wish to can be presented to the Governor‑General when the Address in Reply is presented.
2.12
That SO 4(h) and SO 4(i) be amended as follows:
(h)The Prime Minister or another Minister shall inform the House the time when the Governor‑General will receive the Members of the House and the Speaker.
(i)Before any business of the House, the Speaker, leading other Members, shall present himself or herself to the Governor‑General at the appointed time. The Speaker and Members shall then return to the House. The Speaker shall resume the Chair and report to the House.
Suspension of standing orders without notice
2.13
On 23 March 2020—near the start of the COVID-19 pandemic—the House agreed to amend SO 47(c)(ii) so that a motion to suspend standing orders moved without notice could be carried by a simple majority of Members present, with the agreement of the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. Previously, an absolute majority of Members was required to carry any motion to suspend standing orders moved without notice.
2.14
This change was proposed as there was concern that there may be circumstances during the pandemic where the House may not be able to form an absolute majority of 76 Members. In its December 2020 report The House must go on, the committee expressed the view that limiting the duration of extraordinary changes to procedure to the period of the situation was a key principle of responding to a pandemic or other critical situation.
2.15
The committee notes that the new provision has to date been used seven times. The first four times were noted in The House must go on. As the pandemic has continued, the provision has also been used on:
11 November 2020 (Remembrance Day)
23 August 2021 (to allow the Prime Minister to move a motion on Afghanistan)
1 September 2021 (to allow the Prime Minister to move a motion on the ANZUS Treaty).
Question put on proposed amendments, and movement across the chamber during the pandemic
2.16
Since the beginning of the pandemic, to minimise the need for Members to move across the chamber to vote, the Chair has put each question in a way that allows government Members, voting ‘Aye’, to remain to the right of the chair and those voting ‘No’ to remain to the left. For example, the question on detail amendments not supported by the government is put in the form ‘that the amendments be disagreed to’.
2.17
For second reading amendments, the question was initially put in the form ‘That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question’ (a form of wording that was removed from SO 122 at the start of the 46th Parliament). Since mid-June 2021 these questions have been put in a simpler form (‘That the amendment be disagreed to’), similar to the form being used when putting other questions during the pandemic.
2.18
The committee notes that this practice, while practical during the pandemic, has been done by agreement and is not explicitly provided for in the standing orders.
2.19
The committee also notes that the current phrasing of questions (not only on amendments) can result in unusual procedural circumstances. For example, on 25 November 2021, two divisions were held in relation to a motion to suspend standing orders without notice. In this case, the House first disagreed to the question ‘That the motion for the suspension of standing orders be disagreed to’. As a decision against a proposal to disagree to a motion is not the same as a decision in favour of a motion, the question ‘That the motion for the suspension of standing orders be agreed to’ was then put and the House divided again. This also provided the opportunity to determine whether the motion to suspend standing orders had the support of an absolute majority of Members, as required by SO 47(c), as the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business had not agreed this motion could be carried by a simple majority.
2.20
This example shows that, despite the pandemic-related arrangements in place, movement of Members across the chamber during a division is sometimes unavoidable. Another circumstance where this may happen is during a free vote (or ‘conscience’ vote), as occurred on 1 December 2021.
Closure of a Member speaking in the Federation Chamber
2.21
In the Federation Chamber, questions are decided on the voices. If a Member dissents from the announced result, the question is unresolved and is reported to the House under SO 188.
2.22
In late 2019 and early 2020, there were numerous motions for closure of a Member speaking (under SO 80) in the Federation Chamber, during the grievance debate and period for constituency statements. On each occasion the question was unresolved and therefore needed to be reported to the House. The Member who had been speaking could not continue with their speech in the meantime. By the time the House could deal with the unresolved questions, the period for the relevant item of business had concluded and therefore the House did not proceed to divisions on the questions.
2.23
On 27 November 2019, when a number of closure motions were moved sequentially, the Federation Chamber was suspended by the Deputy Speaker, on the basis that the chamber was disorderly, but later resumed. On both 4 December 2019 and 27 February 2020, the Federation Chamber was first suspended and then adjourned by the Chair on the same basis.
2.24
On 5 December 2019 and again on 2 March 2020 the Speaker indicated to the House that he (and the Deputy Speaker) considered that such repeated motions were an abuse of the forms of the House and disorderly. On the latter occasion the Speaker also made the point that ‘the Federation Chamber is a very innovative thing, but it does rely on the consent of all Members if it’s going to operate effectively’.
2.25
On 27 August 2020 a closure motion was moved on a Member during constituency statements in the Federation Chamber. On this occasion, after the Deputy Speaker stated that the unresolved question would be referred to the House, business continued in the Federation Chamber without further closure motions being moved.
2.26
Previously it had been rare for closure motions to be moved in the Federation Chamber.
2.27
While the committee notes the Speaker’s remarks regarding repeated use of such motions, it does not consider it necessary to recommend changes to the standing orders at this time.
Personal explanations
2.28
SO 68 allows a Member to explain how he or she has been misrepresented or to explain another matter of a personal nature, whether or not there is a question before the House. The following provision was inserted into SO 68 on 13 November 2013:
If a Member has given a personal explanation to correct a misrepresentation and another Member subsequently repeats the matter complained of, the Speaker may intervene.
2.29
The then Speaker, Mrs Bishop, found the application of the new provision difficult from the Chair’s position, and made a detailed ruling on how she proposed to apply the standing order.
2.30
In 2016, during the 44th Parliament, the Procedure Committee considered that implementation of the additional provision in SO 68 had posed unintended difficulties for the Speaker. The committee noted that the new clause placed the onus on the Speaker to intervene, whereas it had always been the responsibility of Members to explain how they had been misrepresented. Further, with no clear sanction, the committee considered that it was unclear what sort of intervention the Speaker was expected to make. The committee noted that it would continue to monitor the situation.
2.31
Speaker Smith also commented on the difficulties of applying SO 68. Most recently, on 5 August 2021, he pointed out that it required the Speaker to have heard the material relating to the matter.
2.32
Separately, the form of personal explanations has also been a topic of comment from the Speaker during the 46th Parliament. For example, Speaker Smith commended the form of a personal explanation, and noted that he would not tolerate political debate in personal explanations.
2.33
The committee notes the comments by the Speaker during the 46th Parliament, and the difficulties posed for the Chair in applying SO 68. The committee also notes that SO 68 provides a Member the opportunity to raise a point of order if they have been misrepresented more than once. The committee does not recommend any changes to SO 68 at this time.