Mr WILTON (4:12 PM) —The member for Chifley proposes a comprehensive range of well considered recommendations, including changes to several standing orders which I think by and large reflect his level of respect for the place and his desire to ensure that it operates efficiently. Neither the mem ber for Chifley nor I will engage in political polemic and cheap point scoring, because that does not advance the debate. Sadly the member for Sturt has yielded to that temptation, but I am sure that the member for Aston will not follow suit. I am sure that he will approach it with an open mind, devoid of polemic and point scoring. If one on this side were to engage in that sort of activity, one might say, for example, that the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and the then opposition, in 1995 I believe, vehemently opposed the initiation of the Main Committee. In fact, that has been a major success in terms of the efficient running of this place.

I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Chifley's sentiments in terms of sections 1 and 2 of his motion, and matters relating to the appropriations, staffing and estimates pertaining to the running of the House. I might go to some length, though, to section 3 of the member's motion, wherein he recommends that standing order 94 be amended to ensure that members cannot be gagged on motions of dissent in relation to the Speaker's ruling.

Of course, debates on matters pertaining to dissent from the Speaker's ruling very much shape the form and procedure of this House in very important ways. If a member feels strongly enough to move a motion of dissent against such a ruling, then I have no doubt in my mind—and I am sure there is no doubt in the minds of most of those in this House—that the ensuing debate should be conducted in a fair, free and frank manner, without the threat of the gag or the axe hanging over the head of any member.

It is important to note that since 1901 there have only been approximately 103 motions of dissent against the Speaker's ruling, and only six of those have been agreed to. So it has been occurring over a significant time during the life of the House, a period during which free and fair debate should have prevailed. Of course, these debates are never interpreted as censures or as personal criticisms of the Speaker of the day, but largely as a focus specifically on the particular ruling at hand.

Again I agree with the sentiments of the member for Chifley with regard to petitions. Much in recent years has been said about the design of Parliament House and the distances it creates, especially between those on opposing sides. There have been some largely superficial changes made to the design of the chamber which have attempted to rectify the problem. I note the installation of flags and the spurious removal of the Hansard reporters to the rear of the chamber. But this is not so much the House of Representatives as it is the house of the Australian people. The House does not need to accommodate change to bring the parties closer together as much as it does need to accommodate change to make the people part of this House. The recommendation proposed by the member for Chifley does indeed go a long way for the first time in bringing people on to the floor of their chamber to promote their particular views, ideals and goals. His move in this regard is a great start in that direction.

That time limits be placed on the asking and answering of questions is indeed an effective initiative to improve the running of the House. Placing a one-minute time limit on the asking of questions focuses the mind of the questioner to succinctly word their questions so as to avoid polemic and ensure the sought answer is obtained with a minimum number of words. If the answers were also limited to a period of four minutes, the responder would be encouraged to remain relevant and thereby diminish the possibility of what might otherwise be spurious points of order being taken on a range of issues.

The member for Chifley deserves much credit and the acclamation of this House for his initiative. These are far-reaching changes of great importance to this House. (Time expired)