Mr MARTIN(11.10 a.m.) —I formally congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, on your election to this very important position in this parliament. I think this particular debate is timely and relevant. I want to congratulate the government for taking some of the initiatives it has in respect of the matters that have been brought before us today. I also want to take up the challenge which was issued by my good friend the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) that if there is a good idea then people should be prepared to listen to it. I would like to make a couple of suggestions in respect of how additional improvements could be made in terms of the work ability of this place which the government may wish to consider.

Much has been said about sitting times. Much has been said about occupational health and safety issues. I am pleased that the views of both sides of the House about occupational health and safety have been quoted in this place. There is no doubt that they are con siderations that we need to put in place and into perspective.

When talking about extending sitting hours, it is not simply a question of what is best for the 148 members of the House of Representatives. What we are talking about is the effect that would have on the people who work within this building and service the needs of the 148 members of the House of Representatives. As many people are probably aware, the fact that people associated with the Department of the House of Representatives put together information for us about the day's proceedings and tidy up what actually happened during the course of the day means that, at 11 o'clock at night when the bells ring and members can go home or wherever else they might want to go, many of those people will have to remain here. They will be expected to be here at 7.30 or 8 o'clock the next morning to get prepared for the ensuing day. I think those sorts of issues are worthy of consideration.

The Leader of the House (Mr Reith) states in the last section of the motion before us today that the Standing Committee on Procedure should actually review any further changes to the times of sitting of the House and report back. I hope that might embrace this specific matter about the occupants of this building and the effect changes to sitting times might have on them. He might also consult with the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on this because I know the Prime Minister is health conscious. I know that he is concerned about his level of physical fitness, as we all should be.

I think we have to extend that argument to include the people who work directly for us in our offices and the other occupants of this building. This does not just affect the clerks and their staff but also affects Hansard, the people in the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff more generally and a whole range of people. I think these issues are worthy of further consideration.

I want to very briefly say something about the 2 o'clock kick-off for question time. I frankly think that is a change for the better. One of the things that has always been of great concern to me in this place is that we have become very much a disseminator of entertainment and not so much a disseminator of information. If a wider audience tunes in—the half a dozen people that like to watch question time at 2 o'clock in the afternoon on the ABC—they will start to actually see what happens in one segment of the day, not the whole of the parliamentary day. Look at us now. There are a range of people in here who hold a range views. The question time frenzy and activity is not evident here. That is always the case, save for the one hour of question time.

But information dissemination through live television coverage is very important. At the risk of offending standing order 82 on anticipation of debate, in respect of the proposition by the Leader of the House on broadcasting what can go out, I quote the former leader on this side of the place: `You've got it dead right.' So I congratulate you for that particular change.

I would also make a couple of suggestions to the Leader of the House which you have not picked up here, because I do not think that some of these changes you are suggesting go far enough. They certainly do not address the sorts of issues that used to ring around my ears in question time, particularly the relevancy of answers given by ministers or indeed the length of answers.

My colleague the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) mentioned in passing the length of answers which ministers gave. Can I suggest to all newer members in this place that, if they have not already, they get hold of the standing orders and they read standing order 144 relevant to questions and 145 relevant to answers. You will see an amazing difference. The subtlety even escapes people in the media in this place, because 144 lists very carefully rules applying to questions. Taking it further and getting the House of Representatives Practice and looking at the way Speakers have interpreted this, you will see very tight rules on questions.

But when it comes to answers, and again the point made by the member for Moncrieff on whether it be relevancy or length, the standing orders are silent, save for 145, which says answers must be relevant to a question. Then it is up to the incumbent in the chair to determine whether an answer has been relevant or not.

Time and time again in my incumbency in that position, members of the opposition would rise in their places, stride manfully—or womanfully—to the dispatch box, often because they were frontbenchers, and say, `Mr Speaker, a point of order. I draw your attention to the length of answers of this minister,' or `I draw your attention to the relevance of what the minister is saying.' Time and time again the occupant of the Speaker's chair had his or her hands tied because of the procedures dictated by this place.

I say to the Leader of the House, because he was one that frequently took up those concerns with me when I was Speaker, it is time that we addressed that very seriously. The Procedure Committee in the past made recommendations about this. The Senate have actually acted on it—there is one minute for a question and, I think, four minutes for an answer. It is time that we looked at ourselves and asked whether a time limit is required in that respect. Or will we see, as part of the new approach in this place to government, those ministers on the front bench, when asked a series of very serious, far-reaching and searching questions by opposition, give relevant and short responses? Only time will tell. But it may well be that this is an issue we will revisit. It may well be, and it may not be too far down the track, that people on this side of the parliament will rise to seek the call from the Speaker to raise the issue of relevancy and the length of answers of ministers, just as they always have done. If we are to get this place to work a little more effectively, particularly at that time and especially now with the change to 2 o'clock when we will see a live broadcast of our question time, at least two days a week I would imagine, then maybe we need to clean up that part of our act as well.

I might just say to the member for Moncrieff in response to her contribution on the 2.30 or 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock start to question time, that 3 o'clock actually is when Sesame Street is on the ABC. In negotiations which were held when the government decid ed to change question time from 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock, it was true that the ABC said they would not under any circumstances interrupt children's programming to put on the House of Representatives. So it had to be on for all the insomniacs at 1 a.m. the next day. Whether it goes to the question of one children's program upsetting another and competing needs, I am not sure. But, seriously, those are the sorts of things that we must keep in mind, too, when we talk about information rather than entertainment coming out of this place.

The other issue which I should mention where I said I did have a couple of suggestions—and I hope the Leader of the House is listening to this—is the fact that the second chamber may be put to better use. When this particular facility was put in place, the idea was that by establishing virtually a duplicate of the House of Representatives we might see non-contentious legislation, committee reports and others go there for consideration. I suggest to you, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that maybe that is something that can be revisited. Maybe a lot more material from the House could be referred to the second chamber, to the Main Committee, for consideration. In that way not only would we increase the time in which that particular body sits, but the amount of material, legislation, debates and other things that members are so concerned about might not be enacted through this place. If we are serious about giving ourselves time for debate, for serious issues to be considered here, then there is nothing wrong with that happening in the Main Committee. I just suggest to the Leader of the House that that might be something that he needs to look at. It may require some changes to the way in which that particular second chamber was established. I am not quite sure whether it would need changes to the standing orders, but perhaps it may.

Let me conclude by again saying to the Leader of the House that I think it is important for us to look at sitting times very carefully in terms of occupational health and safety issues. Many arguments have been mounted in this place. I understand the Leader of the House's desire and need to have more business go through this place, but my suggestion to you is that it might better suit our purposes if the Main Committee was put to further use. The beneficiary from this arrangement to extend sittings in this place on Monday and Tuesday nights can only be the Hyatt, with the fixed meal time being put in place. There is no question about that at all and good luck to them.

However, we do need to consider the occupational health and safety issues carefully. I suggest to you, Leader of the House, that you act on your convictions and act on what you always put to me when the roles were somewhat reversed in the last parliament. You should look at standing order 145 and see whether you are prepared to recommend some changes to the standing orders so that definitions of things such as the relevance of answers and length of answers are picked up. You should make some genuine suggestions as to how question time may improve even more. I understand that you have a genuine desire to do so, and I can only applaud that.

With television coverage now being broadcast live, more people will watch it. It will and should be about information; it should not be about theatrics or entertainment. I have no doubt there will be some theatrics and entertainment, and there is always a place for some of that. But at the end of the day, if we are serious about changing the way this place operates, I would hope that some of those suggestions gain favour from the government and are given serious consideration. The other proposals—such as changing standing order 150 to make ministerial replies 60 days—are excellent. I heartily concur with the other changes that you have proposed.