Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise in support of this motion. I do believe it is particularly urgent, given the conversations in this House in recent times around the definition of 'relevance'. I think the fact that we're having to have those conversations goes to the very point that 'relevance' is too broad a definition when it comes to answering questions. Indeed, if you even look at the dictionary definition of 'relevance', it refers to something being closely connected or pertinent to or having something to do with the question. I don't think that's good enough for the Australian public. If you look at the definition of 'answer', it is a reply to a question or a correct response.

I agree with the member for Curtin's position that this is a community trust issue. This government purports to have a view that it wants to do politics differently. I believe that the Leader of the House actually does adhere to that position. I think that now is the time, with community sentiment and social licence for this kind of change, that the government should be seriously considering whether standing orders as they stand are relevant to our community, whether they stand up to scrutiny within our community and whether they meet community expectations.

I would also add before I finish that, while trust is an enormous factor here—and as a former journalist I have lots of experience in asking politicians questions and not getting answers—there is also the simple matter that the government actually could take some ground here by understanding that it has an opportunity to answer questions directly. It might take some ground in the public popularity stakes by stepping into this space, because I think this is what our communities want. I think that the definition as it stands is too broad. The lack of ability to ask follow-up questions makes it very difficult to get simple answers to questions that the public want to know.

See this speech in context