The SPEAKER (3:47 PM) —I have three issues to raise with members. There was considerable discussion last Wednesday about the provision of sufficient copies of a bill and a specific issue was raised by the member for Calare and the member for Denison regarding the availability of explanatory memoranda. The current arrangements for the availability of bills are that the Table Office receives 100 copies for provision to members, their staff and others. Copies of the bill are available as soon as the bill is presented. A small number of bills and the explanatory memoranda are available in the chamber, having been placed on the table after presentation. Primary distribution takes place from the Table Office, and both bills and explanatory memoranda are loaded onto the web for public access via the internet.

After consideration of the expected demand for the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, arrangements were made to receive an additional 400 copies of the bill and an extra 150 copies of the explanatory memorandum. In accordance with standard practice, as soon as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations had presented the bill and the Clerk had read the title, a small number of copies of the bill and the explanatory memorandum were placed on the table in the chamber and limited additional stock was also available for distribution in the chamber.

Distribution of the bill to members and their staff was also commenced from the Table Office. Distribution of the explanatory memorandum was withheld until its presentation. When it became clear that further copies were required in the chamber, sufficient additional copies of the bill were taken to the chamber for distribution to members. The bill and explanatory memorandum were loaded onto the web. However, the explanatory memorandum was subsequently removed after a short period when it became apparent that there would be a significant delay between the presentation of the bill and the presentation of the explanatory memorandum. In view of the concerns expressed by the member for Denison and the member for Calare, I have asked the Clerk to review arrangements for making available copies of explanatory memoranda.

The second point is that on Thursday last week the member for Denison and the member for Fraser asked me questions about the management and processes of the House, such as those relating to the availability of bills. The suggestion was that these were solely within the province of the Speaker. There is a long tradition of questions on notice, now called questions in writing, about the operation of the House being addressed to the Leader of the House. I refer members to the House of Representatives Practice, page 538. While it is now possible for oral and written questions to be addressed to the Speaker, there remains the option that the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister is best positioned to answer particular questions.

There had been discussion on Wednesday about the provision of sufficient copies of a bill. In this regard, the Speaker’s responsibility, acting on advice from the Clerk, is whether copies of a bill are available within the chamber and from the Table Office so that the second reading can be moved immediately. It is the ministry’s responsibility to ensure that copies of the bill are delivered for the House, and it was on this basis that I permitted the question on Thursday.

The third issue is that last Tuesday the member for Prospect asked me a question about the use of mobile telephones for text messaging while other members have the call. Text messaging on mobile telephones falls within the same category of activity as sending and receiving email messages on laptops. Members and advisers have been permitted to use laptop computers and mobile telephones for text messaging in the chamber for several years now, and I propose to allow this practice to continue. However, as I indicated to the honourable member when he raised this matter, I support the prohibition, enforced by successive Speakers against members and, indeed, other persons, speaking on mobile telephones in the chamber. I would add to this a further prohibition on the use of any camera functions on a mobile telephone while in the chamber.

These practices support the orderly conduct of proceedings in the House and help to ensure that the member with the call is shown the courtesy she or he is entitled to expect and is not disturbed or interrupted by a mobile phone ringing or a person talking or filming on a mobile phone. Members should note that they must avoid having mobile telephones close to an active microphone, as this might cause disruption to the sound and broadcasting systems in the chamber. I have not been aware of proceedings being interrupted by text messaging. Should there be interruptions from any source, I will reconsider the matter.