Dr Mark Rodrigues, Politics and Public Administration
Section
Adversarial politics is a well entrenched feature of Australian
parliamentary democracy. Strict party discipline over the behavior
of MPs has challenged conventions of responsible government and
aided the ascendency of the executive over the agenda of
parliament. Decades of majority government have shaped the rules of
parliamentary procedure (the Standing Orders of each House) in a
manner that limits opportunities for non-government MPs to hold the
government to account. However, the small but growing presence of
minor party and independent MPs has called into question the
two-party winner-take-all culture of politics. The potential for
reforming procedure is much broader where no single party holds a
majority. Independent MPs have secured some significant
parliamentary reforms working with state minority governments. The
wide-ranging reforms negotiated between political parties,
independents and the Greens following the 2010 federal election
have potential to change the relationship between the parliament
and the executive.
Question time
Question Time in the House of Representatives is often
criticised for declining parliamentary standards and
accountability. Oppositions are inclined to use partisan attacks
disguised as questions to embarrass the government to which
Ministers respond with lengthy answers of marginal relevance.
Ministers often use Question Time to attack the opposition with
pre-prepared statements in response to ‘Dorothy Dix’
questions from their own side. Much of the theatre of Question Time
is characterised by disorder contrived to make the evening news.
Proposals to reform Question Time include enabling supplementary
questions, imposing time limits on answers, and requiring answers
to be relevant to questions. Other areas for reform include the
allocation of questions, the treatment of points of order and the
use of prepared statements.
The independence of the Speaker
Part of the role of the Speaker is to ensure that the
proceedings of the House are conducted in accordance with relevant
rules, conventions and standards of behavior. While Speakers have
strived to carry out their duties impartially, the position is
normally filled by a government MP and often drawn into partisan
conflict when ruling against points of order from the opposition.
It has been proposed that the authority and independence of the
Speaker be enhanced by requiring that the Speaker and Deputy
Speaker are drawn from different parties, that they both abstain
from party room meetings, and when one is in the Chair, the other
abstain from voting in divisions. Members of the Speakers Panel,
when acting as Chair, could similarly have their vote
‘paired’ with an abstention from their opposing party,
so as to maintain the relative voting strength of each party in the
House.
The committee system
Committees have to some extent counteracted a perceived decline
in parliamentary standards by facilitating cross-party cooperation
on policy development and scrutinising the detail of government
activities. Other key functions of committees include reviewing
policy, facilitating public participation in the legislative
process and making recommendations. Areas for improvement in the
committee systems include the independence of committees, the often
slow response by government to committee reports, and the tendency
of the government to withhold important information from committees
on the grounds that disclosure would be against the ‘public
interest’.
Proposals for reforming the House of Representatives Committee
system include rationalising the size and number of committees,
enabling them to determine their own inquires (rather than
undertaking inquiries at the request of Ministers) and requiring
timely government responses. It has also been proposed that
controversial legislation be referred to committees for inquiry and
consultation prior to their introduction in the lower House. The
issue of encouraging greater transparency from government has been
a particular matter of contention for Senate committees. Proposals
to address the lack of cooperation from the government in providing
information to committees include referring individual instances to
the Information Commissioner for arbitration.
Support for budget scrutiny
Non-government MPs are particularly disadvantaged in their
access to independent high quality analysis and advice on
government expenditure. Internationally, many parliaments have
created specialist units to undertake economic forecasting, policy
costing and expert financial analysis. The parliamentary reform
package includes a plan to establish a Parliamentary Budget Office
within the Parliamentary Library. Key questions concerning the new
Office include its level of resourcing, ability to access
government information and the range of services it will provide.
These matters are likely to be considered by a parliamentary
committee.
Other reforms
Currently, the funding for the general operation of parliament
is determined through the government’s own budget processes.
The proposal to establish a House Committee on Appropriations and
Staffing (similar to the existing Senate committee) has the
potential to improve the financial autonomy of the parliament. The
role of the new committee includes estimating the funding required
by the House of Representatives and reporting to the House, the
Speaker and ultimately the government. Another major proposed
reform is to establish a code of conduct for senators and members
and a Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner to oversee the code,
advise parliamentarians on ethical issues and report on
parliamentary entitlements. Other proposals for reform include
increasing the time allocated for the business of Private Members
(MPs other than Ministers, the Speaker/President and Parliamentary
Secretaries), increasing the number of sitting days, and reducing
the time allocated for members to speak on Bills.
Possible reforms excluded from the current package of measures
include further asserting the independence of committees by
enabling more to be Chaired by non-government members and
encouraging more ‘conscience votes’ so that MPs are not
compelled to vote on party lines. There is also a broader category
of parliamentary reform that requires constitutional amendment.
This category includes the grounds for the disqualification of MPs,
fixed four-year terms and the process for resolving deadlocks
between the Houses over contentious legislation.
In sum, the package of measures negotiated will likely lead to
an increase in committee activity, scrutiny of government and
private members bills. The increased participation of
non-government MPs will certainly act as a further brake, or check,
on the progress of the government’s agenda through
parliament. It may be that some of the reforms might need revision
due to the increased parliamentary work required. The key to
implementing these reforms and making them work lies in the
attitude and behavior of individual MPs, political parties and the
government.
Library publications and key documents
Australian Labor Party and the Independent
Members Oakeshott and Windsor, Agreement, 7 September 2010,
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fjrnart%2F218795%22
Australian Labor Party and the Australian
Greens, Agreement, 1 September 2010,
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fjrnart%2F218794%22
J Gillard and A Wilkie, Agreement, 2 September
2010,
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fjrnart%2F218796%22
R Laing, ‘Parliamentary reform: options
and pitfalls’, 31 August 2010,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/download/library/jrnart/64987/upload_binary/64987.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22Laing%20Parliamentary%20reform%20options%20and%20pitfalls%20%20|%20EBSCO,AAP%22