John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

Modesty prevents me. The second element of this capacity for follow-through would mean that a supplementary question could be asked from a person who is coming from a different perspective, whether they be government or opposition or on the cross-benches, be they independent or representing the Australian Greens. That was an important element of following through. The suggestion was that it might have a bit of an impact on both dorothy dix questions and also questions asked by non-government senators.

Then there was the third element of it, which was relevance. The plan was that we would hold ministers accountable on the issue of relevance, that if notice was given there would be an increased expectation, which the President presiding in the chamber would be responsible for enforcing, of more and enhanced relevance in terms of ministerial answers to questions and supplementaries. I think it is fair to say they were the three broad elements of this.

Where are we placed with the three broad elements of it? Notice: gone. It is gone. Capacity to follow-through: there is an additional supplementary question but asked by the original questioner, so no capacity for those questions to come from around the chamber. The third element, relevance: I do not think anyone could be serious about suggesting that such a minimal change, such a minimal reform, should lead to any pressure on the President. It is the point I made at the Procedure Committee in relation to relevance.

I come back to where I started. I think this is a disappointing report. I think it is a disappointing outcome to a disappointing process. However, we will all be able to make some assessment of whether it makes any difference at all after the next two weeks of sittings.