Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2019

[Claressa Surtees]

I think the processes sound a bit similar.

In the House of Representatives, a member would give notice of a motion or a bill. We have a selection committee that chooses the agenda for the next sitting Monday. There are periods set aside in the House itself and in the Federation Chamber for private members' business. At those opportunities, the scheduled selected items are available for debate by the sponsor and, if the amount of time is sufficient, then for other speakers on the debate.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, for joining us. I understand you're in the middle of an election down there, so I guess it might be a little slower for you at this point in time. We appreciate your expertise and your wisdom on this subject matter.

I want to start with a bit of a simple question. In terms of proximity to the main chamber, exactly how far away is it? How long would it take to walk from the Federation Chamber to your main chamber?

[Claressa Surtees]

I've not tried it on a sitting day, but I would think it would take perhaps two minutes to walk from the Federation Chamber to the chamber.

In our case, the amount of time available for a division is four minutes for the ringing of the bells. This time was set when the building was first occupied by the Parliament as providing an opportunity for someone walking, but not running, from the furthest point from the chamber in order to be able to get there in time to take part in the vote.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

This is fascinating. We're lazy with 30-minute bells here.

I want to go to some of the timing of the Federation Chamber. You mentioned 21.5 hours per week in terms of the sitting of the Federation Chamber. For the House of Representatives itself, how long does it sit per week? Is it four days a week?

[Claressa Surtees]

Yes. The usual pattern of sitting for the House has been, for many years, four days: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. At the moment, the current timing for the sittings is 36 hours a week. We don't sit any later than 8 p.m. these days. It has been a lot later in the past, but at the moment it's 8 p.m.

The Federation Chamber initially was scheduled to meet for two periods of about three hours on two days of the sittings, but it has grown over the years, and now there's an indicative order of business that sees the Federation Chamber meeting on each of the sitting days, on each day the House sits.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

That's fascinating. Basically, then, I'm to infer that despite the increase in sittings in the Federation Chamber, it hasn't taken time away from the House of Representatives itself. It has still maintained its full sitting schedule.

[Claressa Surtees]

Yes and no, I suppose, is the answer to that.

The House used to sit until 11 p.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays. Clearly, it no longer sits that late. It sits until 8 p.m., but at the same time, we don't have a dinner break, so there's time saved. There has been no diminution in the overall number of hours available for the business of the House.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

You mentioned in the opening comments that typically the Federation Chamber is used for less contentious debates on government legislation. You also mentioned that from time to time more contentious debates could be conducted in the Federation Chamber, but that it is done with agreement from the opposition.

Is that a formal process whereby the official opposition agrees to a more contentious debate? What process or procedure is in place in terms of scheduling both the less contentious and also, more importantly, the more contentious debates? How is that agreement reached?

[Claressa Surtees]

This sort of negotiation takes place outside the chamber, so we don't have a great visibility on it. I know what happens. The leader of the House and the manager of opposition business will negotiate over the matters to be scheduled for the agenda for the Federation Chamber, so there is agreement.

As I tried to indicate, if there weren't agreement, if there were a great deal of unhappiness, it would be very easy to withdraw the quorum because the quorum is the chair, one government member and one non-government member. If the opposition were unhappy, it could simply leave the chamber and the proceedings would immediately suspend.

The issue of how contentious some of the legislation is, or some of the other items perhaps, I think is quite interesting. We've always had the main appropriation bills considered in the Federation Chamber. There's always been an opportunity for members to take quite opposing views about policy during the course of the debate on the budget bills. That hasn't prevented the bills being debated in the Federation Chamber, and it's actually regarded as quite a successful aspect of the operations there.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I want to follow up very briefly about the concept of the quorum. It's basically a safeguard against a government using the Federation Chamber.... Was that designed that way, that quorum was meant as a safeguard, or has that just developed organically as a safeguard?

[Claressa Surtees]

No, you're right. It was designed that way. It was designed so that the Federation Chamber could be regarded as operating on a consensus basis. There is no fixed seating in the Federation Chamber. In the House itself, members have identified seats with their names attached. In the Federation Chamber that's not the case. Members can sit wherever they like. Although the usual convention of government to the right of the chair and non-government to the left of the chair is usually followed, it's not a requirement. In fact, members can sit wherever they wish.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

You mentioned near the beginning of your remarks that the recommendations for the Federation Chamber came out of a report from your procedure committee. Was there an effort there in terms of a consensus report? Was that a consensus report from the outset? Was there all-party agreement to create the chamber at the beginning in terms of developing it in the first place?

[Claressa Surtees]

Yes, it was. It was developed in the context of there being a great deal of unhappiness of members not having an opportunity to debate. Of course, the options to solve this problem are quite limited. It meant extra sitting days, so coming to Canberra for more days, or longer sitting days—at the time they were already quite long days—or to develop this second stream, this second debating chamber. I think members were very [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We are not suspended.

[Claressa Surtees]

I understand that we're trying to address the problem, but I'm happy to continue if that would be appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes, that's okay. We can hear you. We just can't see you. You can just finish what you were saying.

[Claressa Surtees]

I think we were talking about the consensus nature of the operation of the Federation Chamber.

The members don't have individual seating in the Federation Chamber, so that means they can sit anywhere they would like to, although there is a tendency to maintain the government to the right and opposition to the left arrangements, reflective of the chamber. This contributes to the more co-operative approach to the way the proceedings are conducted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I think the question was whether there was consensus with all parties to create the chamber.

[Claressa Surtees]

Okay. Yes, in terms of the report of the procedure committee, the committee had membership from all parties in the House and there was a great deal of satisfaction with the solution that was proposed in the report. There's not a great desire to come to Canberra for extra sitting days or to, indeed, have longer sitting days, but certainly the parallel debating stream was something they were quite pleased with proposing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now we're going to change our questioner. We're going to Mr. David Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, for your time. This is very informative and very helpful. Thank you again.

John and I were wondering whether any of your states have adopted the parallel chamber process.

[Claressa Surtees]

I've had an opportunity to discuss it with a number of the Speakers from the state parliaments. I'm not aware that any of them have actually put the arrangements in place. They're certainly always very interested to come and observe proceedings when they visit Canberra. We often talk about the impact the second chamber might have on the overall ability of the House to conduct its business, but I'm not aware that any of them have actually established a second chamber at this stage.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I have a couple of quick questions before I delve into a little more minutiae.

Are they televised?