Mr CREAN (Leader of the Opposition) (11:23 AM) —Mr Speaker, can I, too, offer my congratulations to you, and indicate that we did not oppose your election; we welcome the fact that you are back as Speaker. I would have preferred the circumstances to have been those of me seconding you in a prime ministerial nomination in accordance with a proposal that I put forward in the spirit of getting order back into the place.

Government members interjecting—

Mr CREAN —Who are the ones who are not genuine? My proposal would see the Speaker alternate, by nomination from either side, for two terms. Those on the other side of the House laugh at that, but I remind the Prime Minister of his words on 2 April 1996, when he said:

We have come halfway but the Prime Minister could not engage his own proposal. I have not heard the prime ministerial response to that proposal but the opportunity will present itself later today when the Deputy Speaker is nominated. We will be putting forward for that position, in the spirit of this proposal, Harry Jenkins. My proposal is that the Speaker be nominated by the Prime Minister for two terms. The position will then rotate. The Deputy Speaker will be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, likewise for two terms, and the position will then rotate. We will have the opportunity to consider this proposal this afternoon, when the position of Deputy Speaker is filled.

I look forward to the coming three years in this chamber. I believe we have to improve the standards in this place, and I admit that I have been part of the problem in the past. I am prepared to turn over a new leaf—

Government members—Oh!

Mr CREAN —but are those on the other side? I note the mirth, but I also note the proposal by the Prime Minister—and I welcome it—that the Manager of Government Business meet with the Manager of Opposition Business to talk these issues through. The Prime Minister says that he does not hold out too much hope on that. What I would like, Prime Minister, is for you and me to sit down and talk these issues through. What is wrong with that? In the spirit of trying to improve the standards of the House, why shouldn't the two leaders of both major parties sit down and work that proposal through?

It is all very well to delegate the detail to others, but unless this proposal has prime ministerial authority it is not going to advance terribly far, I suspect. My point is that not only is the opportunity there in terms of our bona fides in respect of your position to take that a step further this afternoon but also importantly the opportunity is there to improve the standing orders to give substance to the ability for greater independence on your part and greater order in the chamber. I have put forward a package of proposals that will assist you, Mr Speaker, if they are adopted. And I think the opportunity is there, because I have seen attributed to you comments whereby you support the proposal for an independent Speaker and the notion that I have put forward—that the election of Speaker not be challenged.

We would also like to see the standing orders altered such that answers to questions are limited to four minutes, so that we do not have the endless drivel that ministers go on with; questions are limited to one minute; and there again be opportunity for supplementary questions. The important thing, though, is this: we are also asking that ministers fully answer questions. This place breaks down into disorder when this government, by avoiding questions, will not be held accountable. I believe that, if it is appropriate to have a standing order on relevance, there has to be an obligation that questions be fully answered and the answer be relevant to the questions asked. It is a simple proposition which gives effect to what I believe is your intent; an intent that we know, from your earlier rulings, you have great difficulty in enforcing.

We also believe that there should in this place be an opportunity for returns to order; not in addition to matters of public importance but in place of them where we consider it appropriate. It is a practice in the Senate. I think it is something that could usefully be brought into this place so that we can debate issues that arise in question time and that may not have been anticipated by us in the framing of our matter of public importance. We also want to see introduced a circumstance where ministers do not abuse question time by making lengthy policy announcements. There are other forms of the House for that; ministerial statements, for example, where the opportunity is afforded opposition spokespeople to debate them. This is what a house of parliament should be about. There should not just be an opportunity for the government side to put a proposition in terms of a policy announcement; there should be an opportunity also for the opposition to put its views.

The other issue that has been in constant abuse in this place is the length of time ministers take to answer questions on notice. Questions on notice are an important part of the parliamentary process, but time after time we have seen members on this side get up and talk about the inordinate length of time by which ministers have failed to answer. We are proposing that the 60-day rule be reduced to 30 days and that you, Mr Speaker, be given the opportunity to indicate that ministers are in breach of the standing orders. We also think that petitions should be given greater significance in this chamber. People who have taken time to sign a petition deserve to know that it is going to be followed up. What we are looking for is the opportunity for petitions to be properly considered in this chamber.

Mr Speaker, all of those initiatives have been put forward in the spirit of making your task easier. We want to have a chamber that is orderly but, if we are going to be subjected to the circumstances in which our questions are not answered and ministers abuse the form of question time, we have to resort to other alternatives to try to make them accountable. I say to the Prime Minister in the spirit of goodwill at the outset—not by any means as a threat but as a genuine offer—not to delegate this but to take charge of it himself. He has argued on previous occasions, time and time again, that he wants to improve the standards. He has argued for an independent Speaker. I am giving him an opportunity to implement that in his third term. In the spirit of cooperation, I hope he responds positively. I look forward to him setting up a meeting with me, not just delegating it to someone else.