Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is the first report of 2008 for the Procedure Committee. It touches on restructuring question time, referring bills to committees, questions to chairs of committees, how deputy chairs of committees are appointed, and leave to make statements. I understand the motion moved by Senator Chris Evans relates to adopting the clarification of the appointment of deputy chairs and to questions to chairs of committees. We had some confusion just recently on that issue, and it was referred. I have some concerns about that change, but on the whole it may have merit.

The area in this report I want to focus on today is the restructuring of question time. This matter has to be taken with a lot of seriousness. There needs to be a depth of understanding of what question time is all about—scrutinising the government of the day. I get a little concerned when I hear that we will give notice of the questions to the government of the day. Giving notice of what they are going to be asked sounds to me like the dorothy dixers that come from the backbenchers to the government of the day. Yes, the supplementary questions will be blind but, frankly, they are all hunting in the same area. I get really concerned about reducing the accountability of ministers to the Senate.

We should be looking at the way question time currently operates and focusing more on making sure that the questions are relevant to the ministers—and I am not saying that they are not—and that the answers are also relevant to the questions. I think more accountability in that area would go a lot further than actually giving a heads-up to the ministers of the questions. Having ministers of the day knowing in advance which ministers are not going to get questions will mean that they will get a holiday. I think it is good that ministers are kept on their toes a bit, wondering what questions might come their way. This means that the public can be assured that they are really focusing on the issues of the day, issues from some time ago or issues for the future. Not knowing the questions will keep them on their toes. I do not see the sense of weakening question time by giving more dorothy dixers. It seems a farce to me.

Family First is very concerned about the directions that the Procedure Committee has intimated in its tabled report. The argument is put that every other place has gone this way—frankly, Australia should lead the way, not follow others down the wrong path. We should lead the way and fix up question time. We should bring ministers back to relevantly answering questions rather than just following someone else’s way of doing it and giving ministers a heads-up of the questions so they can work out their answers in many different ways. I think we need to strengthen that rather than divert the issue and say, ‘Let’s throw the whole thing out and start again.’ No, that is not the answer. Not at all.