The power of parliamentary debate to influence policy outcomes

To achieve better, more acceptable governance through parliamentary representation we need to change the Australian parliamentary and political culture so that more regard is given to the sovereignty of parliament. We, as members of parliament, must see our parliamentary role as more than just an extension of the partisan conflict that takes place in the electorate at election time, or a forum in which we doggedly pursue our party's platform.

We also need to embrace a wider community responsibility, to accept that no one party has all the answers, but perhaps other parties have a few as well. If we could bring together the collective knowledge of all elements of parliamentary representation and open up debate to better embrace the wisdom of the community, we might produce an outcome of governance that is more valid than that which is drafted in the confines of some departmental back-room or party forum. We need, therefore, to explore mechanisms for meaningful community consultation in the context of the development of legislative packages.

To do this political parties need to look beyond their insular structure, to reach out to the wider community. Australia is poorly served by the rigidity of our party system. It may be seen as useful for government leaders to have a manageable parliament, but there are many countries with strong democratic parliaments in which those who generally support the Government can and do speak and vote against the Government.

While "crossing the floor" may not affect the result where a government has a comfortable majority, the problem in Australia is that "crossing the floor" or opposing one's own party is portrayed by the media as an act of treachery on the part of the individual or a sign of weakness within the party or its leadership. In reality it is a sign of healthy democracy, the encouragement of which would lead to stronger government and a better democratic process. In the case of a tight majority the consequences of ‘crossing the floor’ are obviously more critical and require consideration of the wider issue of government stability.

Paul Kelly identified one of the negatives of parliaments today as the executive domination of the process. He also said parliaments seemed out of touch with the common people and did not engage in sound debate on matters of major concern. He raised the question as to whether parliaments should sit longer, that is, more days and whether there should be a greater focus on the role of MPs as legislators.

What then are the mechanisms by which we may strengthen the sovereignty of parliament? What can we do to make parliaments the fora for powerful informed debate on important current issues? What can parliamentarians do to regain respect with community as custodians of the public good?

Essentially we must return real power to the parliament. Our constitutional base pays little or no regard to political parties. Members are returned as individual representatives with a primary responsibility to represent the views of their constituents. How best then may we modify our procedures to carry out this role constructively? Here are a few suggestions.

• Parliaments should have the right to set their own administrative budget within defined probity limits and transparent accountability.
• Each House should be able to determine the business it wishes to consider and the time it will allocate to that business through its own non-partisan agenda committee.
• While generally parliaments pass appropriation bills without dissent they must have an active, hands-on role in examining both the manner in which revenue is raised and spent.
• Parliamentary debate of issues of major concern should be the forerunner of all major legislative packages so that prior to the introduction of legislation on major issues, for example, new fields of bio-science, the Internet, moral issues or a substantial re-write of a major piece of legislation such as family law or social welfare, a restructure of tertiary education and so on, the government would be required to submit a notice of motion that would allow a free-ranging debate on the subject.
• We must open up the processes of the parliament to demonstrate our bona fides as custodians of the public good rather than arbiters of what we think is good for the public. Perhaps we should also consider using the Internet to establish closer contact with the community.
• We must enhance the role of committees generally. Committees must be adequately resourced, an important reason why parliaments should have control of their budgets.
• Finally, we must educate our members in their representational role. Today members are catapulted into the front line with little opportunity to learn the nuances of parliamentary culture, the ethics of representation, or codes of parliamentary conduct. They face vastly increased demands long before they are adequately equipped to deal with them.

This is not necessarily the fault of parliamentarians but the inevitable consequence of current circumstances. Today the decreasing average length of parliamentary service, the volatility of elections, the increasing demand of our constituency, access to electronic communication and the increasing operational sophistication of government departments, NGOs, and the private sector seems to suggest a more positive approach to equipping members to meet this challenge.

I suggest three initiatives that may go some way to addressing this problem:

1. The development of working tools which will teach and guide new members in the fabric of their day to day functions as distinct from the function of getting elected or re-elected.
2. The development of a formal education process by which members and prospective members can learn the finer points of parliamentary service.
3. Induction programs for new members and continuing education.

There are common threads that run through any educational program that will assist parliaments to invest both their institution and their members with knowledge and custom that can define and develop professionalism and so the respect in which both are held. Few institutions are more susceptible to re-inventing the wheel. Experience often disappears with individuals. Little experiential benefit remains. The number of available authorities is minimal.

Before any of these measures can be implemented, or even given serious consideration, there needs to be the political will to give supremacy to the parliament over party domination. There is an inherent conflict in accountability versus effectiveness and the access of public and press to the deliberations of parliament. I believe, however, there is a steadily growing body of community that will drive an agenda for reform. Parliamentarians should be mindful of this and take the lead rather than hold back and be over-run by the process.