Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Normally, I'd respond after the seconder, but I wanted to make sure that I didn't use too much time and stop other people from speaking, which means I now have very little time! I will firstly refer to the examples that were given, because I think a couple of them are not accurate reflections of what happened. I refer to the example that the member for Calare just gave, in terms of the answer that was provided about that road. I haven't had a chance to grab the Hansard and check, but my recollection is that the response from the minister was that there had not been enough money provided by the previous government to fund that project. That's a direct answer. Even on what's proposed in this motion, I think it would've been easily satisfied in that particular question. Similarly, with the question that the member for Ryan had asked, which was referred to by the member for Griffith—the framing of that question was 'How does the minister justify those decisions?' and part of the minister's justification was what's been happening in renewable energy projects. In terms of a direct answer, I think those ones all stacked up.

As to the balance of what happens in question time, there is a different standard that is used for questions that are on notice, compared with what you would expect for questions that are without notice. Some parliaments around the world—New Zealand, for example—have a system where notice is given to each minister of the particular narrow topic areas that are going to be asked about. The first question is completely with notice, and then the questions that follow are without notice. It involves ministers turning up with very specific knowledge of the direction that things are going to go. It's a different system.

We have the flip side here. Yes, you're right—there is more range for ministers when something is completely without notice. Sometimes you'll get the straight one-word answer that is directly on point. Sometimes, in the context of something provided without notice, ministers will provide what information they have that is relevant. But I should also add, because I think we have to be honest about the balance across the chamber, we have questions that are not questions. I think it's fair to say that everybody who's participated in the debate—and I include myself, when I've been asking questions—has asked questions that are effectively statements with a small question at the end for the purpose of making a point. Similarly, we have points of order that are not points of order—they are an attempt, halfway through, to make the point again, regardless of whether or not someone is being relevant, even though people know that what's being responded to was part of the question. It's about getting that point of emphasis. That's the balance that happens across the chamber at the moment. We have questions that are not really questions, we have points of order that are simply moments to get another grab, and then we have answers that simply have to be relevant to the topic area, which is a different standard to what we demand when a question is placed on the Notice Paper. That's the total balance. If we're simply proposing to vary one corner of that, it's not a true reflection of what's going on in question time at the moment.

I don't think any of us would want to defend what things degenerated into yesterday, but I have to say I don't think it was the fault of the current standing orders. I respect what's been put and I respect the reasons why it's been put, but I do think we are missing part of the point of what happens in question time if we don't also look at the broad range of what's currently allowed in the way questions are asked and the way points of order on relevance are more often than not taken.

See this speech in context