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

Yes, exactly. If you look at them you will see a better plan of action than yours, Senator Fifield—and I listened with respect to your colleague’s submission and I expect that you will do the same. The opportunity exists here for the Greens and the opposition, together with the government, to get better outcomes, if that is what you really want. I put it to the opposition now to approach me and the Greens, our fellow crossbenchers and, indeed, the government—because these things ought to be done by the whole of the chamber—to see how we can better change not just the standing orders but the way in which question time is used by all members of the Senate. I put that genuinely to both the opposition and the government.

What I have watched for 14 years here is simply a point-scoring exercise, a political exercise, rather than an information-getting exercise. I have heard these debates before, but I am saying we now have an opportunity to move this forward. I congratulate members of the opposition for changing the standing orders. We now have a question with two supplementaries, with time limits, and the House has adopted that. It has seen a better outcome. It is better than the free-for-all we used to have. But let us now move on from that to see if we can get better definition, if not agreement, on both the asking of questions and the delivering of information. The New Zealand parliament, for one, does. It is another option to be looked at.

I do think it is reasonable to expect that if ministers are going to be asked to give answers to questions, particularly where either complexity or important information such as of a budgetary nature is involved, then they ought to be given notice. One of the reasons ministers try to duck questions and be non-specific is that they are held to account: if they make a mistake, it will not be seen as a mistake; it will be seen as a misleading of parliament, with attendant motions. So I think we have to have a better spirit of goodwill but look genuinely at how we can improve question time. We can do it; I am making that offer; and I hope this debate does not come to nothing. We need to improve the way in which questions are delivered so they are not point-scoring and we need to improve the answers to questions so they are genuinely informative and serve the public interest.