Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

I am very sorry that I only caught the tail end of Senator Fielding’s contribution after it was drawn to my attention. I was quite astonished at some of the statements he made and the misapprehensions that he is under. Firstly, this is a report of the Procedure Committee, which presents to senators some suggestions and a discussion paper which the Senate Procedure Committee will make some decisions on at a later time. It is a discussion paper. It is not a motion before this chamber. The only motion that was moved today by Senator Evans was to put one of the items in the Procedure Committee report into practice until the end of the current session.

I was staggered to hear Senator Fielding say that we should not be following the New Zealanders. I do not know whether Senator Fielding has ever attended a question time in New Zealand, but I certainly have, and in a number of other places. To think that Australia cannot learn from some other countries that follow the same Westminster system that we follow is showing a lack of understanding and a lack of appreciation. If we do not continually reform the procedures of this place—and they have been reformed over a period of time. For 108 years now we have changed the way we run this Senate and the way we run the House of Representatives. Surely it is right for the Procedure Committee to bring a discussion paper to this Senate so that every senator can have some input—not just in this chamber but in other ways as well, including to the Procedure Committee—and we can then move forward from there.

There have already been suggestions today that go outside the discussion paper that I put forward to the Procedure Committee, including some by Senator Bob Brown. He talks about the need to be able to ask questions that are urgent. If something happens after 11 o’clock in the morning and it is an urgent matter then the presiding officer should be able to allow a matter to be asked as an urgent question. That takes place in other parliaments. I did not include it in this discussion paper because I was too busy trying to get the basis of what we might be able to change without going into the details. But I have talked to Senator Bob Brown and I agree with his suggestion—I quite agree with it; as a matter of fact I have asked the Clerk to draw up some wording for our standing orders, which he has already done, and they will become part of the next discussion of the Procedure Committee. I cannot believe some of the wording in Senator Fielding’s amendment:

... that that Senate is of the opinion that instead of restructuring question time in a manner that could reduce the accountability of ministers to the Senate ...

How on earth could having a question on the Notice Paper reduce the accountability of ministers in the Senate? In fact, it will increase the accountability of ministers in the Senate. And the fact is that we have people from the ministers’ offices and from the departments spending hours of their time every day preparing for possible questions that may never get asked.

I was talking to a former minister in the New South Wales government at lunchtime today who has not been in parliament now for some 10 or 11 years. He said that his staff spent two or three hours every day preparing for question time and he rarely ever got a question. He said it was the most wasted time that could be conceived of for his staff and his department. I do not want to see that waste happen here.

The other proposal is that answers be relevant. That is one of the things that has never been in the standing orders relating to question time. There is relevance applied in other areas of the standing orders but nothing to question time. I am not talking particularly about this government; I am talking about every government that we have had. How many times have we seen media journalists ask the Prime Minister or any minister a question at a press conference and receive a direct answer or at least an answer to their question in a short fashion? I have seen the same questions asked in parliament and we have had 12 minutes of non-answer. The journalists simply would not put up with non-answers to questions and yet, in this place, governments of various persuasions have asked us to put up with non-answers for 10 or 15 minutes. So we cannot even treat our colleagues in this place in the same way that a minister or a Prime Minister would treat a journalist who asked a question at a press conference.

It is important in many ways—and this is my hope in the future—that question time in this place should more resemble the types of questions that we get at estimates where ministers and officials are asked direct questions and give reasonably short answers. If a minister does not want to answer a question in estimates, there are ways and means of getting around it so that question is not answered, but it would not take four, 10 or 12 minutes; it would be done in two minutes. It would still be quite possible for a person not to give a non-answer in question time because they would have to be relevant, but they can get around the question in exactly the same way that ministers do when they are in estimates.

The important thing is to show some reform in this place which makes us more relevant to those people outside the chamber who watch what we are doing. I discussed the purpose of question time with former Senator Robert Ray some six or eight months ago before he left this place. He said, ‘Do up a paper and bring it to the Procedure Committee.’ That was Senator Ray’s reaction because he believed in it and I know that there are some people on the government side who think that there is something that needs to be done about question time. They may not agree with what I have proposed in the discussion paper, but everybody agrees that there needs to be some changes.

In this place and in the other place, as I said once before, we are judged by our behaviour in question time. I have watched question time in other parliaments at length, particularly in Canada, the UK, New Zealand and the Scottish parliament. The Scottish parliament is a new parliament which has derived its question time after looking at the current procedures of all of those other parliaments that have been in place for a long time. The one parliament that they disregarded totally was our parliament because of the nature of our question time. We are the only parliament, to the best of my knowledge, that has questions without notice. The object of the exercise is to try to hold any government accountable for its actions and those actions are held to account by asking direct questions and getting direct answers. Maybe there is a lengthy explanation as to the direct answer, but it can be done.

I cannot see in my own mind why people say, ‘It’s a bit difficult to change; we like the way we do things.’ What we have now to be quite frank is an opposition who ask questions they hope the government cannot answer and we have a government who asks questions of their own ministers where the answers are already prepared. That is the downfall of our question time. If you have questions on notice, a minister has a chance to provide an answer, which is what we should be getting—answers as to the activities of governments and the actions or the non-actions of governments. But by having questions without notice, a minister in real difficulty will say, ‘I’ll take that on notice and come back to you at a later stage.’ Why not give them the notice? Let them prepare the answer and then supplementary questions will arise from the answer to the primary question. You do not have to come in here with prepared supplementary questions. If you get an answer, the supplementary question is automatically generated from the answer.

It will test ministers out and I can tell you it will test oppositions out too. It is just as difficult for oppositions to come up with relevant questions as supplementaries as it is for ministers to continue to provide answers. That is what we are in this place for. There is also the fact that we are putting a short time limit on it. In most other parliaments they do not even have two minutes, in Canada, I think, it is 90 seconds. In New Zealand they have up to 63 or 64 supplementary questions a day. You can have as many as you like on a particular item. In here if we have a themed question time, we ask six questions about the same thing. Why not have one question and ask the six questions all at once rather than toing and froing?

There are so many things, I believe, that will help the processes, the procedures and the outcomes of this place. We might finish up with a public who, instead of thinking that we are a rabble at question time, actually watch question time and get some answers to the questions that they have on their minds as well. That is what this parliament ought to be doing. That is why, Senator Fielding, I brought these proposals to the Procedure Committee. I, together with my staff, have spent six months working on them and that is why I believe that they should be supported. (Time expired)

Debate (on motion by Senator McLucas) adjourned.