Mr CREAN (Manager of Opposition Business)(10.16 a.m.) —Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I say at the outset that the opposition does commit itself to assisting the Speaker and you in the orderly operation of the House. I want to take up the point which the Leader of the House, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), finished on, and that is restoring the proper running of the parliament to some sort of order. That of course is a two-way street. If there is to be the cooperation of the opposition, there has to be the involvement of the opposition in procedures that come before it. Just as there was no discussion with the opposition on the election of the Speaker and the issues surrounding the so-called independence of the new Speaker, so was there no discussion with us about these proceedings which we are debating today.

I will go further and remind the House that on numerous occasions we had complaints from what was then the opposition of not being given adequate notice of government business; yet the issues that we are debating today in relation to the first notice of motion on the Notice Paper were tabled late in the day yesterday, and we did not see items 2 and 3 until the Notice Paper was released today. So what has happened on the first occasion that the new government has had to restore a proper sense of running and order of business to this House? It has failed.

Mr Reith —It was announced in a press release on 31 March.

Mr CREAN —Their claim is that the basis upon which they let us know was a press release that was issued on 31 March. How many times were you critical of us making announcements through press releases and not having the decency—

Mr Reith interjecting—

Mr CREAN —How many times! A litany of them. How many times were you critical of the issue being announced by way of press release and not being done through the forms of the House? So let us have none of this hypocrisy about the new approach. The government has in fact failed on its first day of business.

As I said, we did not see items 2 and 3 until the Notice Paper appeared today. I say this at the outset: this is not a very encouraging start. I hope it is not going to continue to be the norm because if it is it is going to make that task of cooperation which we are committed to that much more difficult. I simply want to place that on the record at this stage.

Having said that, the opposition does acknowledge the sense of a number of the government's proposed changes to the standing orders, and in respect of those we will be supporting them. For example, we do accept the amendment that will enable the mover of a bill to proceed to the second reading speech immediately. That makes sense. We also support the requirement for questions on notice to be responded to within 60 days.

We recognise that the government has a mandate in relation to the change of the roster, and we also recognise that mandate in the starting of question time in the parliament. But let me make this point on the starting of question time in the parliament coming back to 2 o'clock as distinct from 3 o'clock: we did not introduce the 3 o'clock time to avoid the media. How could you ever do that? We did it because we recognised in government the importance of enabling the Prime Minister and ministers to attend important functions outside of the parliament and still having the opportunity to get back here.

Mr McGauran —Long lunches!

Mr CREAN —What about the circumstances of today? There is going to be an amendment on the very first day that we are moving back to a 2 o'clock question time start; there is going to be an amendment today to make it 3 o'clock. We all know the circumstances for that, but I think there does have to be an acknowledgment that there are many occasions in which senior ministers and the Prime Minister in this House simply cannot be back by 2 o'clock. Today is one of those examples, but it is not limited to that. So let us not kid ourselves that there was no merit in the 3 o'clock start. We do acknowledge that you campaigned on the basis of the 2 o'clock start and we are not going to oppose it. I simply make this point: let us hear none of this argument that says that we put question time on at 3 o'clock to avoid some form of scrutiny.

The other area which we support is the changes to the broadcasting recommendations. As the Leader of the House has indicated, these were recommended by the Standing Committee on Procedure. We are not going to oppose those. However, the opposition does perceive significant difficulties associated with the proposed amendments to standing orders 40, 48A and 103. So we will be moving amendments to those particular aspects. In effect, what these amendments do in the suite of amendments that are before us is to alter the hours of sitting of the House principally by extending the sitting hours to 11 p.m. as distinct from 8 p.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays.

Before I come to the argument about the Procedure Committee, let us just understand what we are achieving here. The net effect of the government's proposals is that, whilst the House would be required to be around, either in recess or sitting, for an extra 4½ hours a week, the actual gain in sitting time is only 1½ hours. That comes about because the changes mean no net gain in sitting hours on Tuesday and only 1½ hours net gain on Monday.

I can see your backbench, Leader of the House, looking very pensive about this because they are starting to understand the circumstances in which you are changing arrangements. For a net gain of 1½ hours, you are requiring the place to sit around for an extra 4½ hours. That comes about because we are required to be here for the hour and a half dinner break. Those who have experienced it know that it is very difficult to get out of the place and back within that time of an hour and a half. The requirement is essentially to be here for that time but then stay on to 11 o'clock.

There are a number of reasons why we oppose this motion. The first item is on the agenda because we receive a lot of lecturing from the other side of the House about fiscal responsibility and cutting expenditure, but the costs associated with this little exercise are going to be very significant indeed. The members of staff and the support staff in the parliament that will have to be kept back to accommodate this arrangement are going to increase the cost of running this facility, this business, this House, significantly. I think it is an extravagance in those circumstances and particularly strange in an environment in which the government is, as I say, lecturing us constantly on the need to tighten up on spending.

The second area goes to the impact on one's health. Past experience has shown that late sittings do have a deleterious impact on the health of members' staff. This point was alluded to by the member for Adelaide (Ms Worth) when this debate was on previously. She quoted Senator Herron—as we all know, a medical practitioner—on people's abilities to function when they are operating in the night-time hours as distinct from the daytime hours. We are not the only ones asserting it. There is an array of medical evidence that suggests it is a far more effective basis for operation to have people working in the daylight hours rather than being expected to continue fully up to date and fully operating late into the night.

The third area of opposition is the impact it will have on families. We all know in this place that our families are affected whatever happens, whenever we sit. Whether we sit till 11 o'clock or not, we are away from them for most of the four days we are up here. But what about our support staff? Doesn't this government, which talks about the need for family based policies, have some regard to the impact that families are going to suffer by the fact that people who work here have to stay back for the extra time?

The fourth area I draw your attention to is that when this was debated on a previous occasion it was the media that indicated that they would, as a result of the 8 o'clock change, be prepared to give more consideration and reportage to adjournment debates. I know you have a lot on your backbench. Maybe that has more to do with content, but I would have thought that, with those people on the backbench who want to get into the adjournment debate as a means of getting their points of view up, this is an important consideration for them to take on board.

Finally, the most compelling reason for our amendments is: why change? The existing system works. It was originally referred to, as the Leader of the House has indicated, a standing committee which set the pattern of sitting hours that we now have. It took into account all the facts and reported on the adverse consequences. Whilst there was a dissenting report to that initial set of recommendations, the opposition committee members' part of that dissenting report did not oppose the change to the late night sittings from 11 o'clock back to 8 o'clock. That was the original report that determined the basis upon which we sit.

There was then a review, and that was contained in Time for review: bills, questions and working hours issued in June 1995. In that report, the committee noted that there was general acceptance of the new hours. The committee was reluctant to interfere with the pattern that was working well or to break the regularity of the 8 p.m. rise each day. The committee recommended that no change be made to the hours of sitting of the House. There was no dissenting report put to that. This was the opportunity for members to have made their submissions if they were complaining about it, but, as the Leader of the House indicated, only 12 submissions were received and there was essentially no dissent to the view that we should persist with the change.

We heard the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) talk yesterday about the supremacy of the parliament over the executive. What we have here today is essentially an executive decision going against what the previous parliament determined. I would say that the sensible thing to do here is that, if the government has a claim for changing the hours, it should go back to the Procedure Committee. It should be referred back to the body that made the original decision, reviewed it and found it to be effective.

It is for those reasons that the opposition is not prepared to support the proposed motion. We do propose amendments to the government's motion. In essence, these amendments, which have been circulated, do refer the issue of sitting hours to the Procedure Committee—the body that the Leader of the House so heavily relies on when it suits him to assert his other arguments for change, but not in this case. Secondly, because I do acknowledge the government's right to extend the sitting hours of the House—and this side of the House does—in the interim, pending the report of the Procedure Committee, to achieve that extra net 1½ hours, I believe we should add half an hour each to Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Debate interrupted.