Mr PRICE (12:31 PM) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure I present a discussion paper prepared by the committee entitled Proposed revised standing orders. I have great pleasure in presenting this discussion paper proposing redrafted standing orders for the House. I do so because our Chair, the honourable member for McPherson, cannot be with us today.

Standing orders govern the operation of the House and its members. The proposed standing orders do not represent any change to the operation of standing orders. Rather, the principal feature of the redrafted standing orders is that they are presented in a user-friendly form, which makes accessible the procedural rules by which this House operates to everyone who has an interest in the subject. The redraft encompasses the regrouping of the orders into more logical divisions, the use of clear and simple language, and the deletion of archaic forms of English. The proposed standing orders represent the most far-reaching reorganisation of the rules of the House since 1963. To understand why such a far-reaching reorganisation of the standing orders has been attempted, it is necessary to look at the history of our orders.

Our first standing orders were adopted on a temporary basis, changed from time to time and adopted as permanent standing orders in 1950. These original standing orders were compiled from the orders of various colonial legislatures, in many cases evolving from the standing orders of the United Kingdom House of Commons. In 1963 there was a major revision and reordering of the standing orders. Since then there have been numerous amendments, additions and deletions—many of them following recommendations of the Procedure Committee or its predecessor, the Standing Orders Committee. The evolution of our standing orders has resulted in inconsistencies and ambiguities in some standing orders: the style of language is inconsistent, with a mixture of modern and obsolete forms; the structure and order is not always logical; ambiguous phrasing has led to changing interpretations over the years.

The discussion paper being presented to the House today is the result of the Procedure Committee inquiry into community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House and its committees. The committee reported on this inquiry in October 1999 in its report entitled It's your House. One of the recommendations of the report was that the standing orders be restructured and rewritten to make them more logical, intelligible and easily understood. The committee recommended that the Clerk prepare a draft for the committee's consideration. With the support and encouragement, I am pleased to say, of Speaker Andrew, this discussion paper is the result. The input to the redraft was both intensive and extensive. As well as the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, senior staff of the department worked over many months to review the standing orders as a functional document. The committee considers that the next step in the development of new standing orders should be wider consultation, particularly with honourable members of the House.

In addition to the redraft of the standing orders, the discussion paper provides a context for the new standing orders. It has an introduction which outlines the values applied in the redraft as well as translation tables, which allow the reader to compare the existing standing orders with the redraft. While the object of the exercise has been to reflect faithfully the meaning and intent of the existing standing orders in a more user-friendly form, the opportunity has been taken to remove some obsolete provisions such as the remaining provisions relating to the former committee of the whole. Standing order numbers which no longer have any content are also removed. Where the redraft goes beyond regrouping and modernising language, an explanation of the changes is provided. The most important issue was to accurately redraft the standing orders to be clear, concise and user-friendly. Archaic expressions are avoided. You will not find words such as `affix', `forthwith', `furnish' or `obeisance' in the redraft. At the same time, the unique parliamentary terms such as `reading' of bills or the `naming' of members have been retained. They are a part of the House's heritage and character and are symbolic of its unique place among our national institutions.

The layout and design features of the redrafted standing orders support the speedy identification of the text being sought. The typeface is easy to read and there is judicious use of headings. Diagrams and figures are used where appropriate. Each chapter begins with a chapter outline. The members and clerks of this House who use the standing orders on a daily basis will be most interested in the redraft. Beyond this group are students of parliamentary practice and the community at large who now have access via television and the Internet to the House's proceedings and can hear the Speaker and members referring to the standing orders.

The committee presents this discussion paper, unaltered, to the House and invites and welcomes comments on it from members and others. With the benefit of that feedback, and through its own deliberations on the discussion paper, the committee will present a final report to the House for its consideration. I urge all honourable members to comment on the discussion paper.

The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Chifley for his acknowledgment of my interest and recognise his longstanding passion for reforms of the House. I recognise the member for Mackellar and am aware of her interest as well.