Mr MURPHY (11:59 AM) —Today I, too, would like to congratulate the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure for its report It's your House: community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees . The chairman, the member for Sturt, the deputy chairman, the member for Chifley and other members of this committee have done a tremendous job in making recommendations which, for the benefit of the public, will go a long way in demystifying the work of the members of this House. I note that the terms of reference of the inquiry outlined the issues to be covered and that they were to include the petitioning process, a review of the right of reply of people referred to in the House, the use of electronic communication by committees and improving community involvement in the work of the committees.

As the member for Chifley said in his speech on 22 November 1999, this is a significant report about an important subject `that is opening up the parliament to the people'. One of the very real challenges that we, as members, face is that people feel removed from the work that is undertaken by this House and are not included in making submissions to any great extent. The recommendations made by the committee are those which seek to include the wider community.

This report deserves the support of every member of this House because it seeks to encourage community interaction with the parliament, not just through the traditional methods of tabling a petition but through making committees more accessible and more relevant to members of the public. The report also makes an innovative recommendation about members being able to lodge questions on notice on behalf of their constituents whose names would also appear in the Notice Paper. This would be trialled and limited to 25 questions on notice per member. However, the member would still be able to lodge questions on notice on their own behalf.

In terms of the role of the petition under the recommendations made by the committee, petitions will be given greater weight in several ways: firstly, by ensuring that the formalities of a petition are less rigid; secondly, by allowing members of parliament, if they wish, to table the petition themselves in a 90-second statement to the House or a three-minute statement in the Main Committee; thirdly, by referring the petitions automatically to committees; fourthly, by giving committees the power to take up an inquiry on a petition; and, fifthly, by compiling an annual report of ministerial responses to petitions.

It is my view that the government must implement these recommendations to ensure that petitions which come from our communities can receive greater publicity when they are brought to the attention of and acted upon by the parliament. I would also note that at present, under the current standing orders, petitions are not allowed to be mentioned in debate. If the recommendations are implemented, this would provide a real opportunity for the public to put issues on the agenda. I believe that if, after tabling a petition, a member could also speak in debate about the issues raised by the petition, it would do justice to the work done by those people in their communities to bring these matters to the attention of the parliament.

I now turn to the issue of how people can respond to adverse comments made about them in the House. I strongly support the recommendations made by the committee in an attempt to give people who have been adversely referred to in a speech an opportunity to set the record straight where the House has been misinformed. Specifically, I refer to recommendation 6, which says:

. . . information about the availability of the right of reply process be placed on the Parliament's Internet site on the pages from which Hansard reports and live telecasts of proceedings are accessed, with links to full details on how to apply.

I further note that people who have been referred to adversely in the published evidence of a committee are free to respond directly to the committee involved.

I would also like to give some mention to the recommendations about House procedure, particularly that standing orders be restructured and rewritten to make them more logical, intelligible and readable. As one of the newer members of this House, I am sure that, if this recommendation were implemented, this would greatly assist new members to better understand the standing orders. It would also make it easier for the community at large to understand how this House is run.

I believe that recommendations 10 and 11 referring to public access to the proceedings of the House are useful and ought to be supported by all members. I have noticed the recent change to the Parliament House Internet site which allows the public to view a live broadcast of the parliament as it occurs. It is a great change which I commend because it will allow people to see that, despite media reports about the activities of the House, particularly question time, and despite our political differences, members on both sides of the House really do get along with each other. The public should know this. At the moment, the public mostly see only the seven-second grabs on the evening news bulletins which reflect the theatre of parliament and do not truly reflect most of the good work which goes on in the House.

I noted a few moments ago when I was listening to the speech by the member for Mallee that he was making the same point. It is a shame that the media are really only interested in reporting things that might be seen as provocative and that reflect adversely on members of this House. That is sad. Quite plainly, the media are only interested in sensationalising a story, the proceedings of the House or a committee in the parliament. That gives quite an incorrect view of how the parliament operates and generally how we all work together for the better of this country.

I turn now to the role of parliamentary committees. Once again the Procedure Committee has done a terrific job in finding out some of the problems and making practical recommendations to resolve some of the current issues. I support the idea that committee work must be more strongly promoted. As a member of two House of Representatives standing committees—namely communications, transport and the arts and legal and constitutional affairs—I know that most people do not really understand why committees exist and what they do. I also strongly support recommendation 16 that is basically about educating school students from a young age on what the work of a parliamentary committee involves. This is very important and should be taught in schools.

I also call on the government to implement the committee's recommendation that government respond to committee reports within a four-month time frame. This recommendation is vital because it serves to ensure that the committee work is responded to in a timely manner and that the reports remain relevant. It also means that those people who take the time and make an effort to make submissions to an inquiry receive a response from the government about their concerns. People expect that their considerations are taken seriously by the government. The committee should also inform contributors to the inquiry of the result, so that the public can see the process of the committee inquiry in its entirety, and in an open and accessible manner. I call on the government to implement recommendation 27 as soon as possible to ensure that the work of this House is made more accessible and more relevant to the public.

I also congratulate the Speaker of the House of Representatives for publishing a brochure about the current issues of the House of Representatives. About the House is a publication which will be issued five times per year. It is an important measure. Congratulations should go to the government for the early implementation of recommendation 14 of the committee's report through this publication. About the House greatly clarifies the work of the House and its committees and is available to anyone on request. I am very impressed with this publication and I intend to promote it widely across my electorate of Lowe. This publication contains a tremendous amount of information which should be made readily available to the people of Australia.

Unfortunately, the people of Australia can rely only on the media in all its manifestations to get a true picture of what comes out of the work of the House and, indeed, the parliament. Often only a very small amount of the parliamentary debate is ever reported through television, radio or newspapers. The publication About the House obviously provides an insider's view on the House. It has information about business tax and the bills that come before the House. It has information about the Reserve Bank, the parliament's desire for the community to have a greater say in the work of the parliament and a number of other references to parliamentary committees.

I will just talk for a few moments about some of the current inquiries in which I am participating. It is tremendous that the information in this report is being made available. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs I am about to embark upon an inquiry into human cloning. Already, I have been approached by a number of people who are very disturbed about the prospect of human cloning.

Public forums are to take place in relation to this inquiry in March next year. I will certainly be encouraging people in my electorate of Lowe to participate, because there are grave ethical concerns about human cloning—I understand that clearly. There is also some hope of promoting the growth of arms and legs by the manipulation of the human DNA and thereby helping people who are unfortunate enough to have lost a limb.

Having worked some years ago as the chief executive officer of the Repatriation Artificial Limb and Appliance Service, I came in contact with many ex-servicemen who had suffered the loss of a limb and also with thalidomide babies who are now well and truly adults. I have never forgotten seeing, on one occasion, a young girl, who had virtually no arms and legs, bouncing down the corridors of the limb centre in North Sydney. I say to all those people who are very concerned about human cloning—and I am concerned about it—that this inquiry into the subject will hopefully offer some hope that people who have been maimed will get some relief.

I refer to another inquiry that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts is conducting. You yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, are a member of that committee. I congratulate you on your great interest in transport and the contribution you have made to that committee. I really feel that not many people understand the impact of fatigue in transport, the subject of this inquiry. They do not understand the fact that being awake for 17 hours is equivalent to having a blood alcohol content of 0.5 per cent, which is very disturbing, and the consequences of people not getting sufficient sleep on our roads, in our skies and on our seas. This publication About the House provides a lot of very useful information about the work of that committee. I recommend that everyone read it, because we all drive motor vehicles and travel in aircraft and ships. We can certainly learn something by that.

I have also been a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which is inquiring into the enforcement of copyright. I am sure that the report we tabled the other day will go a long way to helping the owners of copyright control the ownership of their work and not have it pirated and stolen—without denying the right to public access for those in the community who need it for their learning and academic pursuits.

Finally, I am involved in an inquiry into radio racing services. A lot of people would not know that people are denied a broadcast of racing in remote areas of Australia and that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts is conducting an inquiry into that matter. It's your House is a great report, and I congratulate the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure on a job well done. (Time expired)