PRIME MINISTER 51/ 93
STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P. J. KEATING MP
OPENING OF PARLIAIENT
I have received a letter this week from the Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Hcwczn,
rejecting the Government's proposed modernisation of the ceremonial opn ing f the 37th
Parliament on May 4.
I find it disappointing that Dr Hcwson, who sought to make the reform of Parliament an
election issue, should mulishly resist such a sensible reform proposal so early in the new
Parliamentary term.
Some of the existing procedures in the ceremonial opening arc unnecessarily time
consuming. For example, Members of the House of Representatives arc required to move
from their chamber three times in the course of the day, twice to the Senate and once to
the Members' 11all.
The Government's proposal that the Governor-Gcncral's Speech be delivered in the G. t
-lallrcduced the amount of traipsing through the building but, more importantly, would
provide a better reflection of the Constitutional equality of the two houses in our system,
and cmphasise the unity of Parliament. The Government believed all Members and
Senators would want the opening ceremony of Parliament to be seen as relevant, modem
and meaningful to all Australians.
But the Government has more to do than spend its time coaxing the Opposition into the
late 20th Century. Whatever the importance of ceremonial arrangements, the Government
is dctermined that they will not interfere with the real business of the nation, so therefore
the ccrcnony will go ahead as before.
Contrary to Dr Hewson's asqertion in his letter, the proposed changes were hardly " the
result of somc last minute initiative."
I remind Dr llewson that he was a member of the Opposition in March 11988 when it
supported a motion of the House calling for thc opening and the Covcrnor-Gcncral's
speech to be mnoved from the Senate.
Thc Opposition also participated in, and agreed with, the recommendations of the House
of Representatives procedure committee report in June 1991 on which the proposed
changes arc closely based.
It was always intended that the Great Hall in the new Parliament House should be used for
important ceremonial occasions. It was thc for-um for the official opening of the building
by Her Majesty Queen Flizabcth in 1988.
According to Dr Hcwson, thc Opposition is not opposed in principle to sensible and
responsible changes to the cxisting arranigements for the opening of Parliament. The
Government intends, therefore, to provide an early opportunity for thc Opposition to
exprcss such support by moving a motion in each chamber to amend standing orders to
allow the opening ceremony to take placc in the Great Hall for the 3Uth Parliament and
beyond. The point of all this is that at thc first hurdle of Parliamentary reform Dr Hewson and his
Opposition have baulked.
CANBERRA
21 April, 1993
Leader of the Opposition
2 0 APR 1993
The lion P J Keasting MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Prime Minister
I understand that your Office contacted mine on 15 April 1993 to
advise that the Government is reviewing arrangements for the
Opening of Parliament on 4 May and to seek * greement to changes
which would include the location for delivery of the Governor-
General's speech.
Z wish to n.' te at the outset that I regard the way in which the
Government has consulted with the Opposition on this issue to
have been quite inadequate and inappropriate. in view of the
significance of some of the proposed changes, the appropriate
channel for preliminary communications about possible changes to
the Opening of Parliament is directly between you and me ( rather
than at staff level between our offices), and the proper forum
for consideration of any proposed changes is the Parliament
itself. I should also add that I regard the briefing paper titled
" Opening of Parliament" which your Office provided to be a quite
misleading, incomplete and inappropriate account of existing
procedures for the Opening of parliament and an inadequate basis
for the changes proposed.
The GovernmSnt's handling of this issua gives every sign of undue
haste. There has been inadequate provision uf opportunity for
proper and effective consultation. And the case for the changes
proposed has not been made out.
Accordingly, the Opposition does not agree at this time to the
changes in arrangements for the Opening of Parliament which were
conveyed by your Office last week,
Parliamrnnt Hous,., Canberra, A. CT 2600Phone 27" 4022
2.
I want to make, it clear, however, that the Opposition is not
Opposed# in principle, to changes in existing arrangements for
the Opening of Parliament what* ouch changes are Sensible and
responsible, But we are opposed to changes that are the result
of somes last minute initiative, Or that are not fully Considered
and approved by the Parliament, or that seek to break with
Parliamentary tradition for the sake of it, or that are somehow
meant to symbolise, or foreshadow, some broaer constitutional
change. The fav. t 13 that the Opening of Parliament Is a Parliamentary
occasion and not a matter for the Government alone to change,
Change should only be made with the agreement of both the Senate
and the House of Representatives and only after there has been
adequate opportunity for changes to be fully considered anid
debated in bo~ th Houses. To im! pOaa change through other means
would be an abuse of Executive power.
An I have indicated, the Opposition is not opposed, in principle,
to changes in the procedural arrangements for the Opening of
Parliament where those changes are responsitble and appropriate,
and where the proper processen are observed. Accordingly, the
Opposition woul1d support a Joint Commnittee of the ParlIanent
addressing in a proper way existing procedural aztrangements for
the Opening of Parliament. We believe that, before the
poaibility of any proposals for ehange going torward to the
Parliament f or del iberati~ on I detailed and e f fective Consideration
of this kind is the only appropriate courso of action.
Yours sincerely -JvvC4