Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I too want to thank the Procedure Committee for presenting this report, in particular Senator Ferguson for his proposal that we look at the structure of question time. I think question time is always seen by the public as the most interesting time either to be present in the parliamentary chamber or to be at home to watch it on television. Yet it brings more infamy to politicians than perhaps it should, because it is not structured well enough or it does not achieve its aim, which is to get, from the executive in particular but from the government in general, information about the running of the country.

The suggestion is that there be a primary question with up to six supplementary questions, a process which, I am told, works well in the New Zealand parliament. The question would be brought forward by 11 o’clock in the morning so that ministers had notice some three hours before question time began at two o’clock and could be prepared on the matter. The supplementary questions would be allocated in the chamber in a formula not specified in this proposal but presumably would take the same form as in New Zealand, where there is some discussion between parties and party whips as to who will get the supplementary questions. I think it is a very good proposal and I think it would be well worth trialling. However, like Senator Ellison, I am concerned that the ability to put questions directly without notice to the ministers on urgent matters of the day is not spelled out very clearly. That ought to remain so that, for example, if an urgent matter arises after 11 o’clock in the morning—if the country is under attack or some major event has occurred—it is quite clear that there is the ability for that question to be put to government across the floor of the chamber. So I would like to see that matter put very clearly into the mix and that the ability for urgent questions even to take precedence be written into the mix; then the proposal ought to be trialled for six or 12 months, with the ability of the Senate to go back to the current question time arrangements if it so wished at that time.

I note from the material that Senator Ferguson and the committee have provided to the Senate that questions on notice in the Scottish parliament are replied to within 10 working days. We have a 30-day system here, and I think it is a bit of a horse and buggy system. I think that a 10-working-day time for ministers to answer questions on notice is much more appropriate to the faster society we live in in 2008 and that that proposal should be taken up.

There is a proposal here to end the option of asking questions of other senators or chairs of committees, and I do not agree with that. From time to time it is important to be able to ask members of parliament who bring in private members’ legislation—and it may be sitting on the Notice Paper for a long period of time—questions to do with that legislative innovation or proposal or other matters they have before the chamber. I presume that in this proposal the chair would still be open to questions, because it is an extremely important option that senators be able to ask questions about the running of parliament, the good order of the house and related things. So that option needs to not be foreclosed, and I have not really seen it spelt out here.

I think that Senator Parry’s suggestion that there be a two-minute limit on the seeking of leave to make a short statement is a good one. If there is to be a variation from that, then let the person giving leave or the person who wants to put a condition on it do so. It would be helpful to look back over maybe just the last few years to see how long, on average, people have taken in seeking leave to make a short statement. I would think that it is generally less than a minute. There have been occasions where very long speeches have been given, but the majority of those statements would be less than one minute. We could look at the option of seeking leave for a short statement to be limited to one minute on all occasions except where a variation was sought by the seeker of leave or a variation given by the granter of leave—a senator who says, ‘I give you conditional leave.’ I think it would be good if there were a one-minute limit on it, because then everybody would know that that was the limit and that they had to seek a variation if they wished to. Otherwise, on every occasion, a senator giving leave would be likely to put a time limit on it. Let us know what the time limit is and let the seeking of leave allow that time limit to apply unless there is a variation, with good reason, sought by either the seeker or the giver of leave. So I think this is a very good process.

I might add that the Greens are very keen to see private members’ time given better utility by the Senate. For example, it is an opportunity for legislation that originates in the Senate, outside the government—private members’ legislation, obviously—and motions to be dealt with. In my experience the presentation of private members’ bills to this place is fraught with difficulty. If the government of the day does not like the bill—and Thursday afternoon private members’ time is about the only time available—all it has to do is to bring on five or six speakers and the debate on the bill is never concluded. The private member who may get one or two sessions in a year has to see the object of any piece of legislation brought in here, which is to have it debated and a decision made, frustrated by filibustering, from the government, of all things. We saw that frequently during the Howard government years. I can remember only one or two private members’ bills in that time that went through to a vote.

I think we need to have an arrangement whereby there is a genuine intent in the Senate that private members’ legislation, provided it is not frivolous and people are serious about it, is brought on for debate and for completion. If we are going to do that there may need to be new rules set for private members’ time—such as shorter debating periods, the allocation of a time limit to the various components of the Senate process, a second reading decision to be made, or a restricted committee time and a third reading debate and vote to be taken so that the matter can be dealt with.

Otherwise, it becomes a sheer farce and an object of frustration for members who put a lot of time into presenting private members’ legislation to the Senate, only to see it thwarted because there is not enough time and the limited time available is used by an opposition, which can be the government of the day, to filibuster, and therefore there is no conclusion. We will be bringing forward proposals for the better use of private members’ time and that will mean the Senate gains more relevance for the Australian public in this new century.