Motion - Time Limits on Debates in the Chamber

Tuesday 28 March 2023

Time Limits on Debates in the Chamber

[12.45 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, members have before them my notice of motion, which is that the Legislative Council give consideration to the introduction of time limits.

I move -

(1)          That the Legislative Council give consideration to the introduction of time limits on the following Chamber processes:

(a)        second reading speeches;

(b)        contributions made on the permitted three speaks during Committee stage consideration of a bill or matter; and

(c)        third reading speeches.

(2)          That the matters determined in (1) above be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for its consideration and report back regarding:

(a)        the efficacy and feasibility of introducing time limits; and

(b)        recommendations as to the appropriate time limits to be applied to Chamber processes.

This motion, in essence, mirrors a debate we had in this Chamber some years ago.  That motion was narrowly defeated.  I bring the motion on today because I strongly believe that we as a parliament should always be willing to look at the way we do business and, if necessary, look at the ways we can improve our work practices.  We should not be scared of asking ourselves if changes are necessary and if so, implementing those changes; nor, after proper consideration should we be scared of saying no changes are required.  In short, we do not know if we do not give these matters the proper consideration they deserve.  We should always be willing to challenge ourselves to see whether improvements can be made.  Is that not what all successful businesses do?

There is a wise and telling statement made by a Buddhist Monk, Shunryu Suzuki who founded the first Zen Buddhist monastery outside of Asia.  He said:

Everything is perfect and there is always room for improvement.

Is that not the case?  That is why I am moving that the matters in my motion be sent to the Standing Orders Committee for their consideration.  It will then be up to them to decide whether they believe workable and reasonable time limits should be imposed in the debates mentioned in my motion. They would look at whether there should be exceptions to those time limits, especially in relation to complex bills, some social interest bills or whatever they deem appropriate.  All that would be required is for a suspension of Standing Orders for debate to proceed outside those time limits.  Then you decide how long that extra time should be.  It would be up to the Standing Orders Committee.  They may conclude that no changes are necessary.  It is up to them to make that decision.

Some members after the previous debate in 2014 may well be under the impression that the work has already been done because we were told that the issue was before the Standing Orders Committee.  Correct me if I am wrong, I do not believe the committee was able to start or complete its work because I have never heard, been advised, or read any report from that committee relating to time limits.  I would have thought if that committee was inquiring into the matter, they would have communicated with the Legislative Council to obtain members' views and then obtain data from other states or similar jurisdictions and then analysed that data to see if improvements should or should not be made.  It seems to me that the work has not been done or, if it was done, it was done in a vacuum.  At no stage have I heard of any members from this Chamber being consulted or asked their views.

The history behind the imposition of time limits for speeches is interesting.  In the past there were no limits on how long senators and members could speak in parliament.  Everyone then and now quite rightly argued that members have an important duty to perform and they should not be restricted when making their contributions.

This all changed when, in 1918, Senator Albert Gardiner spoke for 12 hours and 40 minutes on the Commonwealth electoral bill.  To my knowledge this is the longest speech ever in Australian parliamentary history.  It was so long that occasionally Gardiner was allowed to speak while seated, maybe because his legs went to sleep, along with some senators who had to sit through the entirety of his 45 600 seconds of contribution.  It is not surprising to learn the speech was a catalyst for time limits to be imposed.

When you study the science relating to effective speeches, debates or presentations, you can understand why.  There is a commonly held belief that to have full effect, speeches should go no longer than 20 minutes.  The 20-minute time period is called the Goldilocks zone of public presentations:  not too long, not too short, but just right.  It is often said that a 20-minute presentation always beats a 60-minute one.  According to the New York Times, Barack Obama's second inaugural speech ranks as among the best of the last 50 years.  The duration of that speech was 18 minutes.

I also know that a previous judge of our Supreme Court was a believer that the most effective speeches do not exceed 20 minutes in length.  He believed if you were unable to get your point across in that time, you more than likely never would.  This 20-minute rule is actually based on neuroscience and what is known about how the brain processes information.  The authorities make for interesting reading.  In summary, they conclude that:

… cognitive processing - thinking, speaking, and listening - are physically demanding activities.  If you pile on too much information, you create ''anxiety'' - cognitive backlog - and your audience will actually turn on you!

In short, if you want to persuade your audience, it is worth remembering the Goldilocks rule.  If you do not, the accumulation of information becomes too heavy for the audience.  Soon, like piling the weights in a gym, the weight becomes too heavy and you drop it all, so say the experts. 

President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is still one of the most famous speeches ever given.  It is stunning in its brevity:  10 sentences, 272 words and delivered in just two minutes.  Few have said more with less.  The Reverend Edward Elliott, one of the most popular orators of the day, spoke for over two hours immediately before Lincoln.  Today, no one remembers anything he said.  Lincoln's two-minute oration, which inspired a nation, is still remembered 160 years after it was made. 

Please do not think I am advocating for two-minute speeches or, for that matter, 20‑minute speeches.  All I am saying is that the Standing Orders Committee make all their recommendations after looking at all the evidence presented to it.

I accept that in some of the more complex legislation that comes before us, or some of the social interest legislation we may have to deal with from time to time, extra time may well be required.  As I suggested, if extra time is needed, then we should always be able to request that the time be extended in order to properly debate and review what comes before us.  This could be done before the debate begins, or during the debate if a member finds it necessary to properly prosecute their arguments.

I am in no way suggesting members should be gagged or restrained in putting their or the community's views.  To the contrary, they should have the ability to ask for and be granted an extension of time the Chamber deems appropriate.  However, there should also be a time limit on the extra time to be granted.  It is done in other states and there is no reason it cannot be done here.

When talking of other states, it is worth noting that each one of them has introduced time limits on debates.  That was not the case when I brought up a similar motion in 2014 but it is now.  I have not been made aware of any major complaints or, for that matter, any valid complaints in any of those jurisdictions.

Years ago members were not able to obtain information as freely as it occurs now.  I can recall vigorous debate about the value of briefings and whether they should be recorded or otherwise.  I think we all accept the briefings we are provided with are invaluable information providers with which to better review legislation before us.  They also give us an opportunity to ask questions which would otherwise be asked on the Floor of the House.  Budget debates are now more efficient than before as a result of the Estimates process.

Previously, each line item in the Budget was considered and questions were asked from the Floor of the House.  Ask anyone who sat through a Budget session in that era and they will tell you it was like drawing teeth.  It went on and on and parliament often finished in the wee hours of the morning, only to be repeated the next day and the next.  That is why the Estimates process we have now was introduced.  It is a more efficient way of doing business, even though some suggest it could be further improved. 

Those changes did not occur without some opposition but people who have experienced the changes believe the process is much better now than it was before.  That is why I am saying, do not be afraid of challenging the way we do business.  Good things can come from it.  Members have not been unfairly restrained from expressing their views or those of their community.  In many cases, they have been given greater opportunity and their message has been given more coverage than was previously the case.  This is especially the case with the present Estimates process. 

Members may argue that the imposition of time limits gives parties in this House an unfair advantage.  My answer to that is, in this Chamber, there is only one elected member for the electorate we represent.  Therefore, each member should be properly putting the views of their electorate in the time allowed.  For party members to all sing from the same hymn book and not debate issues raised in bills, which affect their electorate, would be political suicide.

I must now be approaching the Goldilocks zone myself so I will not go on other than to say that we are no different from other businesses.  We must always be willing, from time to time, to test how best we can work.  Earlier, I quoted from a Buddhist monk and I will finish by quoting from - believe it or not - a boxer, Oscar De La Hoya, who won 11 world titles in six different weight classes.  He wisely said: 

There is always space for improvement, no matter how long you've been in the business. 

It is not how long you take to say it, in my opinion, it is what you say that is important. 

Let us not be afraid to see what the Standing Orders Committee comes back with and what they have to say.  As mentioned in my motion, I am not looking at substantive motions, Budget, grievances or the state of the state Address.  It is purely about second reading speeches, contributions made on three speaks, third reading speeches, and that it goes to the Standing Orders Committee for their determination and report back.