Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As Senator Evans has alluded to, the Procedure Committee has considered five matters and only made recommendations for two changes. We are certainly supportive of the changes that are proposed to the standing orders. I wish to make some other comments in relation to the Procedure Committee. It is a fairly important committee in this parliament. Whilst it does not attain a high profile, it nevertheless facilitates the smooth running of this chamber and also the structure of the Senate as to how we proceed with day-to-day business. Whilst these matters that have been adjusted are minor in nature, they nevertheless help to facilitate the smooth running of the Senate.

Another matter that has been referred to within this Procedure Committee report is the seeking of leave to make a short statement. This was discussed and debated at the Procedure Committee meeting. The report indicates that any senator at any stage can seek leave to make a short statement, and, when granting leave, leave can be granted with conditions. This was exercised in this chamber yesterday. The condition can be that leave is granted for two minutes, which in fact happened yesterday to Senator McLucas.

So, whilst that provision exists to stipulate a time frame, a suggestion which I put forward to the committee, which was not adopted but discussed, was that we have a definition for ‘a short statement’. I proffer the idea that a short statement could be defined as a statement that did not exceed two minutes in duration and that every time a senator sought leave to make a short statement the clocks would be set for a two-minute period. That would simplify matters and everyone would know that the short statement was for a duration of two minutes. That would not preclude in any way the Senate denying leave to make a short statement but, instead, giving leave for a longer period of time which could be set as I originally stated.

Some of my colleagues thought that a short statement definition would be of great assistance just in the day-to-day management of the place. I will give you an example that we have had, usually in the housekeeping portion of the chamber during the day, where a notice of motion is put and either lost or carried and senators seek to create a position and indicate what their position would have been on that particular motion where in fact that motion, if of a contentious nature, possibly should have been debated in a different format. So, when senators seek leave to make a short statement, we end up going into a debate. Once that debate takes place, we find that there is a rolling effect like dominoes and other senators will stand up and say, ‘I also seek leave to make a short statement.’ The short statements can be five or 10 minutes in duration, and we end up tying up a lot of time after voting a motion down, or even supporting a motion, with different parties and different senators placing their position. On one occasion this took 28 minutes, whereas a short statement would have prevented that 28 minutes elapsing if, in fact, it should have been a motion that was just dealt with on the floor of the chamber and no debate should have necessarily followed.

I am still in favour of the option of a short statement. I did suggest to the Procedure Committee that we could possibly trial that position. It was not accepted by the committee. I am not strongly arguing that we should change, but it is a position I still hold quite dearly. At some stage in the future when people have considered this matter in more detail maybe a short statement definition may be inserted into the standing orders or as a temporary order that we could trial at some stage in the chamber. I feel it would be of great assistance for the reasons that I have outlined.

The Procedure Committee also considered a very well thought out and researched paper by the former President and current Deputy President, Senator Alan Ferguson. Senator Ferguson’s submission is attached to the Procedure Committee report. It has been debated at great length, and Senator Ferguson has introduced this in private circles outside of this chamber. I would like to make a couple of comments not necessarily on the detail of Senator Ferguson’s report but some broad comments in relation to question time.

Senator Ferguson has really gone to the crux of the problem. Perception-wise in the public arena, people see question time as being something of a farce, which is a shame because I think the value of debate that occurs outside of question time in this chamber—and, indeed, in the House of Representatives—is superb. People who witness the non-question time portion of the Senate in operation are quite amazed at the intellectual capacity, the debate and the mild interjection which occurs sometimes, which is sometimes healthy but is not to the degree that it occurs in question time.

In other circles question time has often be described as the ‘valve’ of the parliament where we can let off steam. That might be good for us within the chamber, but the presentation to the public at large is not a good one. Whilst we might take some enjoyment in question time and definitely some pain at times, depending on which side of the chamber we are on, that is not the true picture that the public see. I would really like to see a reform of question time. I think Senator Ferguson has raised this at a good time in our political history. I think we need to review how we manage question time.

Senator Ferguson raised the issue of a stricter requirement for relevance. There is absolutely a need for a stricter requirement for relevance. The issue I have with the relevance matter is that whoever is seated in the chair that you are seated in at the moment, Mr Acting Deputy President Humphries, would have to be the sole arbiter as to relevance. The standing orders do not provide clear enough direction or assistance or guidance to the President at this point in time. Convention and Odgers give the President some direction, but the relevance matter is very difficult for the presiding officer to determine. Whilst the answers to questions must remain relevant, the President has often said that he cannot direct the minister to answer the question in a certain way.

We need to fix that; that is obvious. I do not have the answer but I think we need the debate and we need to fix that problem and at least have some form of accountability from the government of the day. I am not laying the blame on this particular government that is currently occupying the treasury bench; this has happened over decades. We need to make some greater degree of accountability in question time. I am sure that will also assist in the public relations battle in relation to the way parliamentarians are perceived, especially with televised question time. One could even argue with regard to televised question time that we should televise the entire parliamentary proceedings for the day so that people get a balance. All they get is that one hour of media sensation—