Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That:

(a)

the amendment to standing order 72, contained in attachment 3 of the report, be adopted as a temporary order with effect to the end of 2008; and

(b)

the amendment to standing order 25(9), at page 3 of the report, be adopted.

This Procedure Committee report was agreed across the parliament as a means of introducing some new procedures which we think will benefit the proceedings of the parliament. It was agreed, after I think a good discussion, to try and introduce some positive change that allows the parliament to function more effectively. While the list of matters considered in the report covers five issues, the report only seeks changes to procedures in relation to two. They are: firstly, the matter of questions to chairs of committees, where we think some change is useful given the way that issue has developed over the years; and, secondly, an issue which I think was raised originally by Senator Parry, an anomaly in relation to the deputy chairs of committees. Senator Parry may well speak about that. I think these are both sensible changes that have been agreed across the procedures committee and I think they should enjoy support across the Senate.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would get a pretty low rating, I reckon.

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

I think that is a very good point that Senator Evans makes: it would get a very low rating. But at least those who did watch question time could possibly be enticed to watch for the remainder of the day. I am sure there is an age demographic of people who are at home at two in the afternoon who might continue to watch other proceedings of the parliament for the remainder of the day. I know that other countries have facilities for the live broadcasting of parliament over television—not through the internet; we have that facility here, of course. If it were available all day, that might ameliorate at least to some degree the concern that the public have about our question time antics or the theatre that question time has become.

But, in going to the crux of Senator Ferguson’s recommendations and report, I think it is time for this parliament to have a thorough discussion about question time. I think it is time for us to address it in a very serious way. Senator Ferguson’s report is a good starting point. He has really opened up our thought processes. If we can debate this and come up with a better process for question time, if we can establish the credibility of ministers answering questions with a relevant answer—and, as I have indicated, there are many examples on both sides of the chamber—if we could really enhance that process through reform of our standing orders as to how question time is governed and run, I am sure the beneficiaries will be not only this parliament but the country as a whole. The accountability question would then extend from estimates into the chamber as part of the question time process.

I really recommend the report to all senators, because I think every senator needs to read this report. Senator Ferguson has placed one idea clearly on the table, and I think that has some merit. But let us examine other ways, other models, and come up with a way for question time to reflect the seriousness and the importance that this chamber should be portraying.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion moved by Senator Evans. I recommend the contents of the Procedure Committee’s report to senators. It covers a number of areas and, importantly, amendments to standing order 72 which caused some discussion in the Senate not long ago. I think it is important that we keep the drafting of the standing orders up to date. Many of them were drafted a long time ago, and overseeing various parts of the standing orders to ensure that drafting can be improved could be a job that the Procedure Committee could do on a more than regular basis. I sympathise with whoever is sitting in the chair in relation to the interpretation of some of the standing orders. I think that the suggestions to amend standing order 72 are very good.

I would like to touch on two other areas briefly. Firstly, in relation to the question of how we structure question time each day, I am a great fan of questions without notice. I am a veteran of some 600 or so question times and, as a former minister, I can say that questions without notice keep the government to account and force ministers to concentrate on the portfolio and other related issues for which they have responsibility in the Senate. To take away the element of surprise takes away the sharpness of question time. There is the question of relevance. I think Senator Ferguson has done an admirable job in the paper he has included in the report. I agree with Senator Parry that we could certainly look at question time. But the one thing I would like to remain is that they be questions without notice.

There are very few jurisdictions in the world where you have questions without notice asked of the government. I know it sidetracks ministers in the course of the day. I think it was Senator Evans who caused them to have a look at the brief and I agreed with him at the time. I hope I have not misquoted him. Questions without notice keep the minister of the day on his or her toes—and quite rightly so. When I had all those question times, the fact that there were questions without notice galvanised the concentration demand somewhat, and I think it is important that we do that. This is a unique feature of the Australian parliament, so I would want that to stay.

The other question I would like to touch on is short statements, which have been somewhat the bete noire of the Senate. I have much experience in relation to this as a manager of government business and opposition business, and invariably it is a rule or a convention which is abused. You give leave for a short statement, and half the time they are long statements. We can put a time limit on it, and the practice now is that two minutes are given—and we will see how that goes. My preferred option is to put it into standing orders and say a short statement should be two minutes and just that, because to pick and choose whether you set a time limit or not can invite some controversy. I think you need a set rule as to what a short statement is. I think that that is something that should be looked at. Leave is invariably given for a short statement, and I am a firm believer that where leave is sought for a short statement it should be given, generally speaking. When leave is sought, a senator should be allowed to at least seek leave. That was another issue which was not necessarily canvassed in the report but which was put on the agenda.

I think seeking leave is one of the great safety mechanisms of the chamber—that is, no matter what the standing orders, a senator can seek leave to say or do something. The requirements of the day might necessitate that, and I think it should be there as a convention that if leave is sought then the person should be allowed to seek it at least. Whether or not they get it granted is another story. That is a completely different question. Sometimes you get leave and sometimes you do not, but at least you should be given that assurance that you can seek it and ask for it. I think that is something we could clear up in the standing orders because the Senate, as a bastion of free speech and accountability, should have the ability to guarantee a senator that, if he or she wants to seek leave, at least they can seek it. Whether or not they get it is another matter. I think that is an important issue.

Finally, I leave the Senate to contemplate this: where we have sought to suspend standing orders—and there are a number of other mechanisms, like contingency motions and such—we have shortcut the mechanism by agreement. That has been done on occasions. I would like to see that streamlined a bit more so that we do not have what can be a convoluted process to arrive at that point. We generally know what the arguments are and we can generally express them in five or 10 minutes—no more. But sometimes, when we have had the whole issue of suspension of standing orders, it has taken more time than the issue at hand itself was going to take. I wonder if it is not worth looking at streamlining it so that we have a certain ability for everybody to speak on it or that there be sufficient time to canvass the important issues at hand but streamlining the whole suspension of standing orders so that the Senate can quickly resolve the question ‘Do we suspend or not?’ one way or another. At the moment you can take a rather circuitous route to arrive at that. I would invite the Procedure Committee to give that some thought in the future. This is a very good report. I think the Procedure Committee has done a really good job here, and I think a few more reports from it would be quite handy.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak to the motion moved by Senator Evans on the first report of the Procedure Committee for 2008 relating to standing order 72. I note, as other speakers have, that this is a very welcome report by the Procedure Committee of the Senate. It addresses a number of very important issues including that of the amendment to standing order 72 relating to the direction of questions to ministers at question time and suggests that perhaps greater precision or clarity could be achieved by an amendment to that standing order being passed by the Senate and being adopted as a temporary order until the end of this year. I am sure that will come under further discussion in this chamber as the debate proceeds.

I also wanted to refer to some other provisions of the report. The Procedure Committee, as other senators have commented, often works under the radar as it were. It is not necessarily one of the high-flyers of the Senate committee system in terms of the glare of publicity and the tumult of debate, but on this occasion it does put forward some very interesting suggestions for the consideration of senators and I think this is a very valuable report.

I am firmly of the view that procedures in this place should be considered in a dynamic and active manner and from a dynamic and active perspective. I think the Senate should be able to consider its arrangements regularly and, in presenting this report on four or five very specific areas, the Procedure Committee has provided some important material for our consideration.

I know there was some publicity attracted by the proposals for the restructuring of question time particularly those contained in the attachment of the report—the discussion paper presented by the then President of the Senate, my colleague Senator Alan Ferguson—and those proposals did attract some media attention. I think that it is important for us to consider the possibilities of change. I note in Senator Brown’s remarks, as well as referring to the specific recommendations in this report, he made some reference to the need to have a little more flexibility in the process in relation to questions without notice specifically continuing and I think that is very worthy of consideration.

I have not had the opportunity, given the tabling of the report only yesterday, to examine in great detail the four specific proposals that the report outlines, but I do want to congratulate those members of the Procedure Committee who were prepared to bring this forward. It does answer those challenges, if you like, of dynamism that I put forward in my remarks just a moment or two ago.

I have also had the opportunity, as Senator Ferguson noted in his remarks, to view question time in a number of other parliaments which adopt the Westminster system, most particularly that of New Zealand, which I have had the opportunity to see on several occasions. It is a very different process from the one in which we engage here—I was going to say the one which we enjoy, but I am not sure it is always an enjoyable experience. It is a very different process and in a multiparty chamber such as New Zealand’s now is that obviously has an influence on the way in which their question time plays out. I think some aspects of New Zealand’s parliamentary procedure are worthy of our consideration and I hope that the chamber is able to do that.

I note also the other aspects of the report in relation to the reference of bills to committees and I note that the concerns, which were raised previously, can be addressed under existing procedures. I think that the comment that the Procedure Committee makes about maintaining the principle that only the Senate may decide whether bills should be referred to committees is an important one and one which we should continue to observe.

The clarification suggested in the report relating to the deputy chairs of committees and the specificity needed in that proposed amendment is obviously also very useful to ensuring that the processes of the committees of the Senate are able to be carried out with confidence and with no doubt attached to the role of deputy chairs in the absence of the chair.

The final aspect of the report relates to the issue of leave to make statements. Of course, this arose out of recent events in the chamber, where statements extended over a longer period of time than senators who were in a position to grant leave expected at the time. I think putting some clarity around that, an agreed position on time, will lead to better and more efficient running of the chamber, and a better procedural approach to that particularly dynamic—again I use the word ‘dynamic’—aspect of what we do. The capacity to grant leave to make brief statements is, as other senators have said, an important part of our work. To have some clarity and certainty around that process is, I think, useful for senators and useful for the operation of the chamber. I am pleased to have been able to make a contribution to this debate.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too note this report of the Procedure Committee relating to standing order 72 and the motion moved by Senator Evans, and I agree with the comments of previous speakers that if we want the Senate to be a dynamic institution, to be relevant, then having a regular review of our procedures is more than appropriate.

If I could focus on the issue of question time—and I note the comments of Senator Ferguson yesterday and the reference to reforming or restructuring question time in the report—I believe that is something that ought to be explored. I believe that it does have a lot of merit. It is my general practice to let the relevant government minister’s office know the nature of a question I will be asking—in fact, just a few moments ago I contacted Senator Faulkner’s office to advise that I am hoping to ask a question this afternoon on water recycling and stormwater harvesting in Adelaide—because it is not about mounting an ambush; it is about getting a decent answer. That is the way I like to conduct myself in this place, to allow question time to also be an effective answer time.

I do note the comments of Senator Bob Brown that there may be circumstances when there is a need for an urgent question, if something has occurred, or there may be exceptional circumstances where you do allow for an urgent question to be asked. I think that there ought to be flexibility in any proposed restructuring of question time to allow for that. I do think that we would get much more value from our question time, as would our constituents, if there were a reform of the current structure of question time.

I also want to reflect on the issue of questions on notice—that there be, as Senator Bob Brown referred to, a specified time period for a response, similar to the Scottish parliament. I think that is the sort of thing that would be a very useful reform.

In relation to private senator’s bills, while they are not directly referred to in this particular report, I want to note that in my time as a member of the South Australian parliament’s upper house, if many private members bills were introduced—and I was responsible for many of those—there was always a provision to allow for a vote on those bills at the behest of the member introducing the bill. That gave members, particularly crossbenchers, an opportunity to find out where the government or indeed the opposition were on a particular issue, and that is a very useful exercise. I think it would be good for democracy to have in place a system that would allow for votes to be put as a matter of course. Maybe, given the time constraints in this place, it would be a truncated debating period where people could state their positions. But, in terms of a bill at the second reading stage, I would have thought that was something that ought to be allowed for private senator’s bills as a matter of course.

Having said that, I look forward to ongoing discussion about this. I think that, if we improve the structure of question time in particular, the Senate will be a better place for it and I think that our constituents will thank us for it as well.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This report of the Procedure Committee relating to standing order 72 is very timely. I was on the Procedure Committee for some time, but I am not anymore; however, I do think it is very important that the way matters are conducted in this chamber is reviewed regularly by the Procedure Committee. Question time in particular has become very staid and is in need of a slightly different approach.

As Senator Ferguson outlined in his paper, there are certainly different systems applied around the world. Senator Ferguson refers to the New Zealand system in particular, which I might come back to. He also refers to the British system, which I have seen and which I think is really an interestingly different way of conducting affairs: themes are set for each day of the month so that all questions on a day are directed to a particular minister and department, and that occurs on a monthly rotation; and the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, only answers questions for an hour once a week. In this chamber, of course, we do not have the Prime Minister but we do have an important minister in the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I think the British system does not allow enough flexibility to deal with important issues which come up day by day. I certainly would not support going to that kind of system in the Australian parliament.

But the New Zealand system, which I have observed, is one that does have a lot more flexibility than our system. In question time, there is a lead question and then several supplementary questions on a particular issue. Were that adopted in this chamber, it would mean that individual senators would have the opportunity to ask spontaneous follow-up questions on particular issues. If that procedure were adopted in this chamber, it would make question time in the Senate much more useful in terms of providing information to senators and the public. The way question time is conducted in New Zealand, the subject questions have to be submitted in writing some time before, so people know the particular subjects that will be covered in a question time. But I think there is also a need for a little bit of flexibility so that spontaneous questions on important issues can be asked.

In general terms, I very much support the thrust of this Procedure Committee report as it refers to question time, but I suggest that one thing that could be copied from the House of Commons is the written questions. These have to be answered on paper and the response is included in the Hansard. As the Procedure Committee report notes, in 2004-05 there were 23,552 answers printed in the Hansard, of which 21,176 were responses to written questions. That means that in the House of Commons a huge volume of issues can be covered through the parliamentary questions mechanism. It might be claimed that our estimates system obviates the need for that, but the British parliament also has an estimates system and a committee system. The possibility of written questions on notice provided to ministers should be considered in addition to adopting a similar system to the New Zealand one. I do agree that the time limit required for the answering of questions should be fairly short—perhaps no more than 10 days.

I want to deal with a couple of the other points raised in this report. The clarification of the role of a deputy chair is important. It is often unclear when the chair leaves a committee meeting whether the deputy chair should take over or another person who the chair or the majority of members present decide to elect as an acting chair should take over. It is very important that there be crystal clarity about the role of the deputy chair.

The other point relates to seeking leave to make statements. Seeking leave is a very important procedure in this chamber because many things can be done by seeking leave. This procedure is abused sometimes and people do speak for an inordinate amount of time once they have been granted leave to make some comments. I do support the concept of having a time limit on it. I would support a time limit of up to five minutes and that might be allocated on the basis of three minutes initially with an additional two minutes being provided if necessary.

In general terms, I think the Procedure Committee has written a very interesting report, as it always does. The specific suggestions in relation to reforming question time in this chamber should be given very serious consideration.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the Procedure Committee’s first report of 2008, in particular the restructuring of question time. I have never spoken about a Procedure Committee report before, but this particular report raises some really interesting questions of principle. It is fair to say that the Senate was founded in 1901 certainly as a house of review but, far more importantly, as a control on executive power. That, of course, received a great fillip in the 1970s, when Senator Murphy developed the committee system.

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

So you don’t think the concept of the founding fathers of the Senate as the states house had something to do with it?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take Senator Faulkner’s interjection about a states house. It may have been founded as that, but it was never quite that simple.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason, you can take the interjection, but I would ask senators to direct their remarks through the chair.

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

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Faulkner, Senator Mason has the floor.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator Faulkner actually read the interesting biographical work that has been produced about the senators, particularly chapter 1—

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

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! This debate has been conducted without interjections, which probably reflects the nature of the discussion, but I ask that Senator Mason be allowed to proceed with his remarks without interruption.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, thank you for your protection.

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

I don’t know whether you’ve read them both. I launched the second one.

The Acting Deputy President:

I would ask you to respect my ruling, Senator Faulkner.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chapter 1 of the first volume talks about the states house and says in fact it was not that simple. It was about a house of review that was elected upon different lines than the House of Representatives, which gave a different flavour to the democratic representation of this country—not strictly a states house; not at all. It is rather more complicated than Senator Faulkner is making out.

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

No, I just know that you ignore the view of the founding fathers.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I do not ignore it, Senator Faulkner. A house of review is the principal requirement. Then, of course, in the 1970s Senator Murphy led the charge to a committee system, which has been developed in the Senate, as you know. Without doubt that gave the Australian Senate far more constitutional relevance and far more policy relevance, and it has changed the nature of this great institution—for the better, I might add. For example, I think of how Senator Payne’s committee, the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, did some terrific things. For example, the terrorism laws—

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

I know he likes to be erudite.

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! I would ask Senator Faulkner to cease interjecting. Whilst I appreciate that you are speaking to the report of the Procedure Committee, Senator Mason, I think you are starting to stray a little bit beyond the content. I think I understand where you are heading, but I would like to draw you back to the report of the Procedure Committee and the amendment moved by Senator Evans.

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

I was only trying to help him with his filibuster.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Faulkner, would you please cease interjecting! I do not get the opportunity to say that often, so I am asking you to cease interjecting.

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

I’d love to.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am really speaking about accountability and how, in a sense, this great chamber is the principal force for accountability in the Commonwealth parliament and, indeed, probably in all houses of parliament in this nation. Senator Payne’s contribution as chair of that committee showed in effect, with respect to the terrorism laws, that the House of Representatives will pass laws as demanded by the executive, those laws will hit the Senate and the Senate, through its committee system, will reform laws, put forward amendments and, let’s face it, make those laws better. That is what this chamber does and it does it very well.

The third, and perhaps the most important, accountability mechanism is the estimates process. It is not that I was a member of the executive for very long—it was a very short period. However, members of the executive frequently forget that, in fact, constitutionally they are accountable to the parliament. It is the parliament that votes money to the executive and the executive is accountable to the parliament, not the other way around. Sometimes—and this is not intended to be partisan at all—ministers of all colours forget that and refuse to answer questions, yet it is the parliament that votes money, the people’s money, to the executive; it is not the executive. These are all accountability mechanisms. Finally, I come to question time. I know you are excited by that, Mr Acting Deputy President.

The Acting Deputy President:

You are being relevant now, Senator Mason!

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is another avenue of accountability—it is the fourth avenue of accountability. Question time is ostensibly a matter of accountability, but, let’s face it, today it is more a matter of political theatre. I say that again, and not in a partisan sense: it is far more a matter of political theatre. Yes, in a sense, you may be holding ministers to account, but the aim is not really to secure information; the aim is to secure a political point—and that is the difference. It is quite different from the committee system and quite different from estimates. Question time is, in a sense, a quick jab and the hope of a knockout. That is what it is about.

Having had a good look at Senator Ferguson’s contribution, I must say the work he has done is commendable. He talks about relevance. How do you define relevance? That is what worries me. On page 6 of the report, under the heading of ‘Issues’, Senator Ferguson says:

This means that ministers, as long as they remain broadly relevant to the question, are free to answer as they see fit. This may take the form of simply reciting a pre-prepared brief on the matter providing only the key points they wish to emphasise and/or using the opportunity to comment on the policy positions of other parties.

In other words, the recitation of departmental briefs—and, let’s adopt some candour here; we have seen this from both sides—is used to cover a broad plethora of questions. So, in fact the Senate and the people of Australia are no better informed. This is not a matter of procuring information; it is a matter of the opposition securing a scalp, and of the government stonewalling or, sometimes, going into attack mode. That is a fact. I say that without any partisan rancour.

Perhaps it is time that we changed question time. If we really want it to be a time when we secure answers—when information is secured—then clearly ministers would have to be given notice, but then the follow-up questions would become all-important. As I said, the real issue is: how will you define relevance? Senator Ferguson’s proposal pivots on the notion of relevance. Again I ask: how do you define relevance? Often context is important. As you know, I love to speak contextually and historically. You know that, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Faulkner knows that. You might say, ‘Gee, that doesn’t sound very relevant,’ but of course it always is, as you know Mr Acting Deputy President.

With those reflections I want to congratulate Senator Ferguson for a marvellous effort in the Procedure Committee. I have never spoken on a Procedure Committee report before but it is certainly something that the Senate should consider forthwith.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also want to add my support to the proposal suggested by Senator Ferguson for a change in the way we operate at question time. I do not want to be partisan in saying this, but I think any fair minded observer of question time in this Senate during 2008 would accept that rarely have any of the ministers to whom questions were asked actually answered the questions. The number of points of order being taken—not only by the Liberal and National parties but by the Greens and the minor parties as well—is, I think, proof that senators simply do not believe that the questions they have seriously asked are being addressed by the ministers.

I have tried to encourage the former President and the current President to rule on relevance. I know that they say that they are not able to direct ministers how to answer questions—and I am not suggesting that they should—but they should require them to address the question that is asked, to give an answer and, if the minister is not capable of giving an answer, to say so and to sit down. The whole purpose of question time is to provide an opportunity for non-government senators to find out what is happening, to understand what the government is doing, to keep the government accountable and to get information which is very often relevant to our constituents. People want to know things. They want to understand why governments are doing things. They want to know when things are happening.

I would desperately like to know what the Labor government is doing to prosecute the Queensland government for its breach of EPBC conditions on the Paradise Dam up near Bundaberg. The Queensland government built that dam. It was approved by the then environment minister under the EPBC Act, subject to certain conditions. Those conditions were not met by the Queensland government. I asked Senator Carr about it. You should not do this—and this is germane to Senator Ferguson’s suggestion in the report—but I tipped Senator Carr off that I was going to be asking about this. I then asked him what they were doing and he started talking about the Traveston Crossing Dam, not about the Paradise Dam, which I had actually asked him about. Of course, I got no answer. I still cannot get an answer on what is happening.

Similarly, a lot of my constituents are desperate to know what Mr Garrett’s timetable is for his EPBC consideration of the Traveston Crossing Dam on the Mary River. My constituents are very concerned about that dam. They are hoping that Mr Garrett will go back to his rock band days and the principles he held dear in those days, and save the lungfish, the Mary River cod and the other species that are endangered now, because they could disappear if the Traveston Crossing Dam goes ahead. I have asked about that at question time but I am still none the wiser about when Mr Garrett might get around to making a decision. I suspect the delay is because he does not want to offend his mates in the Queensland Labor government, who are the proponents of this awful dam, but at least I would like to know when he might be going to make a decision, what his process is and where he is at. Perhaps he could even let me know if there is some way I could help him make the decision! But if you ask these questions they are just ignored.

That brings into question the whole purpose of question time. As Senator Mason rightly said, it now seems to be an opportunity for government ministers, on TV every now and again, to get up and give a four-minute policy speech on all the great work that they have done. They are not answering our questions. They are just getting up, picking a word out of the question and then talking to the television cameras for four minutes and telling everyone what a great job they have done. That is not what question time is about.

I have seen a number of question times in parliaments around the world—such as the British question time process, which I quite enjoyed. I saw it when that great liberal, Mr Tony Blair, was the Prime Minister—

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

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Both almost, Senator Faulkner. He is a great man. I have a lot of admiration for him.

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

He’s actually Labour.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, he is a member of the Labour Party in Britain. I thank you for your assistance, but I know that. I have seen him answer questions. He does address the question. He does answer the question. He gives information. It is not always an answer that he would want to give, but he does give it.

I remember I often used to say to former Senator Hill when he was Leader of the Government in the Senate, ‘That was a great question; you could have really given the questioner an uppercut on that one.’ But, no, Senator Hill never played politics with his answers to questions in question time. He gave information; he actually addressed the questions. Most government ministers used to. When I was a minister, I always attempted to address the question. My good friend former Senator Kemp was also one who very often answered the question and gave information. But we are not seeing that now and that is why I do think we need a change.

I will concede, seeing he is in the chamber, that Senator Faulkner does try to answer questions. Senator Evans, much as I hate to say this, on occasion does attempt to give an answer. But the rest them who currently sit opposite seem quite incapable of giving information.

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

Would you consider withdrawing the word ‘try’?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pardon?

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

Would you consider withdrawing the word ‘try’?

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, refrain from responding to the interjections and return to your speech.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give the other ministers the benefit of the doubt and say that they do at least try to answer the questions, but I gather from Senator Faulkner’s interjection that he thinks that they are not even trying to answer them!

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

You misunderstood me.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, well, perhaps you could elaborate on that in the—

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

I was referring to myself when I said, ‘Would you consider withdrawing the word “try”?’

The Acting Deputy President:

Order, Senator Faulkner! If you would like the call—

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

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Faulkner! You have an opportunity, if you wish, to speak later, but let us at least allow Senator Macdonald to finish his speech.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, Mr President! You will note, Mr Acting Deputy President Forshaw, that I have elevated you because of the way you are looking after me! It really does bring into question the whole purpose of question time. Why should we bother to turn up every day at two o’clock to ask questions if we know before we get here that, except from Senator Faulkner, we are just not going to get any answers but rather a four-minute TV presentation by whichever minister is here on whatever he or she thinks they have done that is good on which they may be able to get some publicity?

If, as in the British system, you tell ministers what your first question is going to be then you cannot have ministers coming along saying, ‘I’m only the representative minister here, so you can’t expect me to know the answer to that, so here’s my four minutes of telling you all how great I am,’ rather than them answering the question. If you give them notice, there can be no excuse for a minister coming in and not being fully briefed on the subject, whether it is in his or her own portfolio or whether it is in a portfolio for which they might represent a minister in the other place. For a start, the minister would have the opportunity of being fully briefed and would be able to give an answer.

The supplementary question, as I understand Senator Ferguson’s proposal, would then be on the same question. If there were a bit of blood sport in question time—and I am not suggesting that there would be—you could have some penetrating questioning in the supplementary questions. The minister would be required to give an answer, because he would have studied the brief and understood all aspects, and we might get some revealing answers, which is what question time is all about and, from my limited experience, that was how question time operated in the mother of all parliaments in London. You would actually have a good process coming through.

I am not sure how the Senate, if we did adopt this, would deal with it. Would the questioner be allowed one supplementary question and then would other people from his own party follow on with supplementaries or would it go to the crossbench or perhaps even to the government, who might like to be part of the process? These are the sorts of things that need to be worked through.

I am also indebted to Senator Mason for raising in his speech the issue of what is relevant. Again, Senator Ferguson’s proposal seems to require that answers be directly relevant to each question. I suppose that you could get a room full of lawyers arguing what is relevant, but it is possible to determine what is relevant in the normal understanding of the English language. In fact, judges do that all the time in trials where witnesses are being questioned. The questions in a court have to be relevant. Judges make sure that happens. I think the Presidents we have had over the years were capable of understanding just what is relevant and germane to the issue before the chamber.

So I look forward to further investigation, discussion and consultation in relation to this matter. It would be very useful, I think, in question time to be able to hold the government to account and to get reasonable answers. I would like to know why Mr Swan spent the first three or four months of his career as the federal Treasurer talking the economy down, talking about inflation exploding, when clearly it is not. I thought the Labor Party were going to get rid of the blame game, but Mr Swan and Mr Rudd both spent the first three or four months of their term in charge of this country talking our economy down.

We continued to ask questions about why they were doing it—putting it another way: why do you hate Australia so much that you are trying to destroy the economy? That seemed to be their approach. We have also asked a lot of questions about their past performance in government. For financial conservatives, the last time they were in power they left Australia with a $96 billion debt. We have asked questions that sought to distinguish between their claim to financial conservatism and the fact that they left a debt of $96 billion. We are curious to know how they can say that inflation is a problem—I do not necessarily agree with that; that is a debate for another issue—and that it is all Peter Costello’s fault if the inflation genie is out of the bottle. They are quick to blame Peter Costello about that. But then they trumpet that they have a $22 billion surplus. They do not seem to have the same consistency there to concede that the surplus was really Peter Costello’s—and congratulations to Peter Costello on leaving this government with a $22 billion annual surplus.

Remember that when we took office in 1996 the annual deficit in that year was some $10 billion just for the year, adding onto the $86 billion debt that was already there. We have handed over to the Labor Party a surplus that over the next five years is estimated to be, curiously, $96 billion in the plus. So from Labor’s $96 billion in the red we have given $96 billion in the plus, which is a huge turnaround by the Liberal government.

These are the sorts of questions that we have continued to ask the current ministers about and, quite frankly, asking Senator Conroy questions about the economy and about Treasury—lovely fellow that he is—is just a futile exercise. Clearly, he has no idea. But if this proposal were put into effect, then even Senator Conroy would have to come briefed with answers on the economy that were relevant and he would then be subjected to supplementary questions which would enable the senators to get a better understanding of what was happening and to hold the government accountable for what is clearly moving to be their mismanagement of Australia’s economy. We hope that if we can ask the questions, perhaps from opposition we can try to keep the government accountable, highlight their mismanagements so that, hopefully, they will do better and will not sell Australia down the gurgler. We know that Labor are a high-taxing government but perhaps by exposing their high taxes at question time we can impose upon the government to address their high-taxing propensities. That way we can perhaps play a role. So this whole new system, I think, is important. I have just about finished what I wanted to say but if nobody else wants to speak on it I will seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

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

I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion. I did flag the matter in the debate; I simply want to put the amendment to the chamber.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate and I move an amendment to the motion moved by Senator Evans:

Omit paragraph (a), substitute:

(a)

standing order 72 be amended by omitting paragraph (2) and that this amendment operate as a temporary order with effect to the end of 2008.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, do you have that in writing?

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

Yes, I do, and if I may have leave for 30 seconds to reiterate the argument, that may help the chamber.

Leave granted.

This amendment would mean that senators in the chamber would still be able to ask senators other than ministers about matters relating to bills or other motions that they are bringing before the parliament. For example, I could be asked: when do you intend to bring on your legislation restoring rights to the Territory and the ACT? I think that it is fundamental that we be able to leave that option on the Notice Paper.

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

We have not had a chance to consider Senator Brown’s amendment. I have just learned of the amendment and I discussed it with Senator Brown a moment ago. I would like further time to consider the implications of that amendment and bring this matter on again later in the day if we possibly could.

Debate (on motion by Senator Parry) adjourned.