PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:00): I move:

That this council—

1. notes the recent agreements signed between the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party, and between the Australian Labor Party and the Independent federal members (Mr Tony Windsor and Mr Rob Oakeshott), in particular, the focus in both documents on improving the processes and integrity of parliament; and

2. requests the Standing Orders Committee to consider amendments involving the following, viz:

(a) at the beginning of each sitting day, prior to prayers, the President to make an acknowledgement of country;

(b) questions during question time be limited to forty-five seconds and answers to four minutes;

(c) answers must be 'directly relevant to the question', with the President to lead on enforcement of the relevance test; and

(d) the preference in question time for both questioners and ministers to endeavour not to use notes.

As all members are aware, there have been some serious negotiations taking place in Canberra around the formation of the new federal government. Those negotiations have involved the Australian Greens and some of the Independent members of the House of Representatives, in particular, Mr Tony Windsor and Mr Rob Oakeshott. The culmination of those negotiations has been an agreement to support the Gillard Labor government on matters of supply and confidence. As part of those agreements, a range of reforms to parliamentary processes have been committed to by the Labor government.

The motion that I have brought before this council is for us to consider some of those reforms that have been agreed to by the Labor Party in the federal arena as reforms that are worthwhile here at the state level as well. The wording of the motion, as much as possible, reflects the exact words that were used in the agreement reached between the Greens, the Independents and the ALP.

I will start off by saying that there are some things we do in this chamber that are already far better than the arrangements that exist in the federal parliament. If members are looking for a reason as to why that is so, the clearest answer is that this chamber has not been dominated by the government of the day for some three or more decades. There has always been a crossbench that has held the major parties to account.

If we look at the composition of this current Legislative Council we can see (and we know these numbers intimately as members) that there are 21 votes on the floor of the chamber: seven Labor, seven Liberal and seven crossbench. Parliaments over the past several decades have had variations on that theme with a crossbench holding the balance of power.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Russell Wortley reminds me that there are eight members of the Labor Party. I did mention 'on the floor' because, of course, my attention was also focused on the esteemed President sitting where he does, not on the floor but in the President's chair.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: On the floor we have seven, seven and seven.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am being distracted by these interjections. There are a number of reforms that we considered introducing in this motion, and I have focused on two of them, but I just want to mention in passing some of the other reforms which I think are worthwhile but which do not form part of this motion and which I am interested in bringing back at some stage, preferably in cooperation and collaboration with other members.

One is the question of broadcasting of proceedings of the parliament. That is an excellent way to ensure that the public have access to all that goes on and not just the juiciest bits that the media picks out. Broadcasting on the internet is by far the cheapest and easiest way of doing it. It does not require a dedicated free-to-air television station. The internet, I think, is the vehicle of choice. We need to reform the order and priority of question time, I believe. Interestingly, in these last two days, the seven crossbench members have had only four questions. We need to remember that the crossbench is, in fact, the same size as the official opposition.

One reform that we could consider here, and I say this with all due respect to our President, is that the President (or the Speaker in the other place) could be required—as he or she is in the UK—to resign from their party to be an independent chairperson of the proceedings of parliament. I have not gone there with this motion, but that is another thing for us to consider.

There are some ongoing issues that a number of us here have talked about: electronic copies of amendments to bills and, again in the electronic realm, the acceptance by parliament of petitions in electronic form. We could also be talking about the involvement of the upper house in the estimates process, although not the sham of a process that occurs in the lower house. We could do much better than that. In any event, I have not incorporated all those reforms into this motion. I have focused on two things: the first is what we now know as an acknowledgement of country and the second, some reforms to question time.

In relation to an acknowledgement of country, I note that my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks is now the Greens shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs. Also I note that the House of Assembly is starting the day's proceedings with an acknowledgement of country. I am indebted to the people of Reconciliation Australia for their provision of a very succinct guide to what an acknowledgement of country is. I will just refer briefly to that guide. It says:

An Acknowledgement of Country is a way of showing awareness of and respect for the traditional Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander owners of the land on which the meeting or event is being held, and of recognising the continuing connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to their Country. An acknowledgement of Country can be informal or formal and involves visitors acknowledging the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander owners of the land as well as the long and continuing relationship between Indigenous peoples and their Country.

At a meeting, speech or formal occasion, the speaker can begin their proceedings by offering an Acknowledgement of Country. Unlike a Welcome to Country, it can be performed by a non-Indigenous person.

The guide goes on to say:

There are no set protocols or wording for an Acknowledgement of Country, though often a statement may take the following form.

I have put this in the third person to reflect how such an acknowledgement might occur in this chamber. The words are:

We would like to acknowledge that this meeting—

this parliament; this council, if you like—

is being held on the traditional lands of the [Kaurna] people and pay our respect to elders both past and present.

That would be the simplest form of an acknowledgement.

The acknowledgement of country is important, because it does recognise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were the first Australians and custodians of the land. An acknowledgement of country promotes an awareness of the past and an ongoing connection to the place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

Interestingly, I can recall some time ago a rally on the steps of Parliament House, and I was speaking to a senior Ngarrindjeri man. I offered him the chance to come in and have a look around Parliament House. He had never been inside. To my surprise at first and, later, understanding, he said that this was not his place. He felt no great desire or need to come and see inside this place, because he felt it that it had no connection to his people or his world, and he would rather not come in here.

That is a sad indictment on the state of reconciliation, and I think that an important gesture in building bridges would be that we would acknowledge either at the start of each day of parliament or, as they do in the House of Assembly at the start of each week, an acknowledgement of country.

The next lot of reforms that this motion refers to are reforms to question time and, as I have said, the last two days are good examples. There were only two crossbench questions on each of those days. We do need a level of discipline on both the member asking the question and the minister in answering it.

One thing I could have put in this motion was banning Dorothy Dixer questions. I did not put that in because I am sure that the day is soon upon us when one of the government backbenchers desires to ask a tricky question of a minister and put one of their ministers under real pressure to actually make account of themselves and decisions they have made. So, I have not proposed banning such questions.

When it comes to the answers to questions, these need to be relevant, and different ministers have different styles but I think there could be no doubt that there have been frustrations in the past about answers given. My proposal in this motion is that we ask the Standing Orders Committee to have a look at some specific changes. In relation to the timing of questions, I have suggested 45 seconds for a question and four minutes for an answer. That is what the Labor Party agreed to in the federal arena.

Of course, I would be more than happy to accept amendments from other members who might, for example, want to relax those times but who might still insist on a minimum number of questions being asked and that question time continue until we have got to 12, 15 or 20 questions. It might mean a two-hour long question time but at least we would know that we would have the chance to ask questions. For now, however, I am sticking with the one-hour question time, 45-second questions and four-minute answers.

The answers must be directly relevant to the question, and the motion provides that the President is to lead on the enforcement of the relevance test. This is a job that he is called on to do at some time, but I am sure that our President might be assisted by some extra direction in the standing orders to make it really clear that answers to questions have to be directly relevant.

If we are to go to shorter and more succinct questions and answers, then there will be less need for any of us to read our questions or read answers and, in fact, reference to notes should be discouraged. I think that we would find that we have a better question time, a more accountable question time, and I think that is good for our democracy.

In conclusion, I think there are two main ways that we can let the sunshine in, as has been said elsewhere. One of those is to improve our practice, improving the connection between the parliament and the community, and the acknowledgement of country forms part of that. I think it is an idea whose time has well and truly come and we should adopt that practice here in this chamber.

Secondly, in relation to the reforms for question time, question time is one of the most important times of the day. It is the occasion where we get to hold the executive to account. It is the time of day that is of most interest to visitors, whether they be school students or members of the media, and I think all of us in a quiet moment would acknowledge that it does not work as well as it should. I think these improvements will be a genuine reform to our democracy and, as I say, if it is good enough for the federal parliament to be introducing these reforms, it should be good enough here in South Australia.

When we come to vote on this motion, at some time in the future, I particularly look forward to the support of Labor members and I remind them that this was an agreement that was signed by the Labor Party at the federal level and I am sure they are champing at the bit for a chance to introduce these similar reforms in South Australia. I commend the motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Mr I.K. Hunter.