Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the report be adopted, and the procedures outlined operate as a temporary order for the two weeks of sittings beginning on 24 November 2008.

If one were to take into account public opinion on the proceedings of parliament, there is no doubt that that portion of the parliamentary proceedings which would receive the most criticism would be question time. How many of you go back to your electorates and have people say to you: ‘Why don’t they ever answer a question? Why don’t people behave themselves better? They behave like school children. If my children behaved like that I would send them to their room.’ For a number of years, we have had constant criticism of question time in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is not something new with the change of government; it has been a criticism of governments of every political persuasion.

Madam Acting Deputy President, you would know that a couple of months ago I drew up a draft paper which was circulated to the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure, and then an initial report of the Procedure Committee was presented to this parliament. That draft proposal contained what were considered radical proposals, of which there were four key elements. One was that all questions should be put on the Notice Paper rather than be questions without notice. In fact, they are not questions without notice even now. As we heard yesterday and at other times, the Greens in particular give the minister notice of what they are going to question the minister on. So it is not questions without notice. I sometimes wonder whether those questions from the Greens are in order because, under the current procedures, we are supposed to ask questions without notice. That was one of the issues contained in the draft proposal paper.

The second issue was that of the length of responses to questions that were asked. The proposal was that the answering time for primary questions be reduced from four minutes to two minutes. If a direct question is being asked or indeed if many questions are being asked that cannot be answered in two minutes, then I am of the view that they probably cannot be answered at all. The proposal is that a restriction of two minutes be placed on the time allowed for answering questions.

It was then proposed that a number of supplementary questions could be asked by both sides of the chamber in relation to the primary question. There would be one minute to ask the question and one minute to answer the supplementary question. This was based on experience that I had gained from other parliaments around the world. Of all the parliaments in the world, I think ours is the only one that has questions without notice. In other jurisdictions, all questions are on notice for varying lengths of time—sometimes just for that morning and sometimes for a matter of days. My choice is that questions are on the Notice Paper by 11 am or 11.30 am.

The fourth element of the original proposal was in relation to the answering of questions. It would be a requirement in the standing orders that all answers be directly relevant to the question that is asked. This is the most difficult section because it is still open to the interpretation of the presiding officer as to whether or not an answer is relevant. If there were some clear direction that answers had to be directly relevant to the question asked, then at least it would give guidance to a presiding officer as to a limit on what is broadly relevant in an answer. There have since been several discussions by the Procedure Committee as to how this would operate. The original consensus view has changed somewhat in recent times, and that is why this report has been presented to the parliament today. It contains minimal or, what I would call, incremental changes, because they are certainly not as radical as those proposed in the first place.

The minor parties, in particular the Greens, wished to retain their right to have a question every day—and I can understand why, having had a question every day, they would want to retain it. We sought to compensate them for the fact that they would not get a question every day by allowing them to have supplementary questions on other people’s questions, but it was the choice of the Greens to retain a question every day. So we had to look at another framework to operate under. Once it was clear that, in order to accommodate that, we could not have more than two supplementary questions for each primary question in order to accommodate the numbers, my own party were not very keen to proceed with questions being placed on the Notice Paper. I was personally disappointed, but it was a decision taken collectively by my party and so I am quite content to go along with their wishes.

So what we have before us is really just an incremental change to what currently exists, in the hope that at some stage in the future, when we have seen how this works, we might be able to refine it and move towards the original proposal. But we will have to see how this works first—how comfortable people are with it, particularly in the area of relevance—to see how it will pan out in the future. The proposal before us today is that we reduce the answers to primary questions to two minutes and that there will be an opportunity for the questioner to ask up to two supplementary questions rather than the one that currently exists, with one minute to respond to those supplementary questions. This would allow, if the maximum time were used, the question to take up to seven minutes. It does not take that long now, in practice, and it will not in the future because quite often questions do not take a minute to ask and quite often the answers do not go to the full time limit. It would at least guarantee that the order of questions that currently exists would be maintained under these proposals.

A lot of time and thought has gone into trying to come up with changes, and I think even some change might change attitude and behaviour. The time that the chamber becomes unruly is when an answer has been going on for a considerable time and many people consider the answer not to be relevant. There are certain ministers whom I consider to be always relevant in their answers, and you find that they rarely get interrupted. The behaviour of the chamber is better when those questions are being dealt with than it is when we have what opposition parties say is an answer that does not deal directly with the question but skirts around the issue and is really a statement by the minister on anything other than the question that has been asked.

I hope that the Senate, in adopting these changes, will see that the supplementary questions are more related and responsive to the answer that has been given by the minister, because I think that too is important. Opposition parties of all persuasions have been guilty of writing the supplementary question before they come in here, and that may bear no relation to the answer that has been given.

I hope that even this small, incremental change will make a noticeable difference. Whether or not it will remains to be seen. As I said, I am personally quite disappointed that we were not able to achieve consensus on more radical change but I think it is a worthwhile idea to trial these proposals for the last two sitting weeks of the session. They will operate as a temporary order. We will have a chance to review them in the new year and maybe even to improve upon them and finetune them. I do not think there is any need for me to say any more; I know other senators wish to speak on this. I commend the report to the Senate and would hope that it is adopted.

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

Let me at the outset congratulate Senator Ferguson for the work he has put into this report. I hear and can understand his disappointment that the recommendations do not go further. However, he can take the kudos for the move to have question time looked at and for having a suggestion come forward that is going to enable more questions to be asked and more relevance to be brought to question time. This is not just because the chair is being empowered a little more directly to require relevance to the question from the minister answering the question but because it creates the opportunity for the questioner to ask two supplementary questions, one of which will occur halfway through the time that the minister has to answer the question under existing circumstances, which is when many points of order are taken in this chamber asking the chair to bring the minister back to the question.

I think this will be a decided improvement. The question is: will the goodwill come with it? That is what I would seek all sides of the chamber to keep well in mind. One difficulty with the bicameral set-up is that we do not have the relevant ministers here in the chamber to receive most of the questions. They are in the House of Representatives. I think the executive finds the Senate a bit of a mystery. The process of having surrogate ministers here means it is a two-stage process. One of the advantages of giving notice, which Senator Ferguson sought, was that the minister in the other place could see the question with three hours notice and furnish an answer. A lot of debate has gone on in the corridors about whether that would deprive opposition senators or crossbenchers of the time-honoured major function in question time, which is to try to catch a minister or the government out. In my view, the primary function is not that; it is to get information. It will take goodwill from the government to ensure that this works—that is, the goodwill to supply information and to make sure that information is available.

We have made no agreement on this, but I for one will be seeking to put questions on notice during the period of trialling here, and I will ask some of my colleagues to do so as well. If we do, I think we will get a better outcome. I agree with Senator Ferguson that change needs to be made, because question time is debased by the political pointscoring that is brought into it. It is sometimes embarrassing to hear questions being completely ignored and uproar in the house because of that. To give governments their due, they know that question time is being used as an ambush rather than as a genuine effort to elicit answers. All of us should think on that. I can tell Senator Ferguson and the other committee members, who are also to be congratulated for making this change, that I will be committed to trying to make this work over the coming two weeks. If it does work, we will get better information coming out of question time in the Senate, and that is a good thing for the Australian voters who put us here.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the proposal itself, it may be worth relating where we started from in respect of the original proposal. The original proposal that was put forward by Senator Ferguson to the Procedure Committee, which morphed into what we are now dealing with, is somewhat different. The original proposal was: no notice to be given of questions at present, to a situation where notice is given in respect of the question so that all primary questions would be placed on the Notice Paper by 11 am; up to six supplementary questions following each primary question could be asked—and I understand from the original proposal that that would not be from the primary questioner, but could be from a range of other senators from either side of the chamber; two-minute answers to be given to each primary or supplementary question; and answers that are directly relevant to each question.

What was clear from the submissions that were put forward by Senator Ferguson at the time was that, firstly, supplementary questions were to be a positive feature and that they were to be provided in conjunction with the time limits of questions and allow senators to pose questions to elucidate an answer already given. That was the opportunity of providing up to six questions, to be able to drill down into the question itself, and to take up the position that Senator Brown had enlarged upon in the chamber today, which would then provide an information-giving exercise. Of course, that was also linked to the ability for notice to be given, and notice was one of those matters that were going to be linked—and linked in this way with notice meant that ‘directly relevant’ became more able to be ascertained, because the relevant question would be on notice and the rationale would then be inextricably linked to the notice provision for the answer to the question to be with notice and, therefore, should be expected to be relevant to the question.

Without notice, of course, the mischief that Senator Ferguson was trying to avoid is lost in that. So when Senator Ferguson argues that this is an outcome which is an incremental change, when you compare the two it is not an incremental change. Senator Ferguson’s original conception was a reforming of question time through the Procedure Committee. It is fair to say that the government was lukewarm about that proposal. The position we are now at, with notice not being provided, the answer in respect of the questions is in comparison to the current question time—the full seven minutes is still relatively unchanged, supplementary questions have been expanded from one minute to two, and of course the rider of answers being directly relevant to the questions is now still attached. But of course the argument in the paper, of why that would be relevant to include, has been lost. Therefore, the original reforming ideas are somewhat now muddled.

It is fair to say that the practical application of putting questions on notice each day seems better suited to a unicameral system such as the New Zealand parliament. To be frank the government did have some doubts that the proposal would work in practice and meet Senator Ferguson’s objectives of truly reforming question time, lessening of course unnecessary work in departments, improving the flow of questions in the chamber and also ensuring that the system would be trialled to see how it worked to ensure that the issues raised by Senator Brown would be improved. That would be an opportunity for the opposition to question ministers and to question the government in respect of programs or policies that it is pursuing.

The strength of the argument for reform, of course, is now not there. The strength of the reforming issues that Senator Ferguson put forward was highlighted in the original paper that was proposed where, on page 7, it stated:

A significant amount of time and resources in government departments and agencies are put into preparation for question time in areas that may not be required on that day. Public servants from many departments and agencies expend a significant amount of time preparing briefing material for their ministers on a wide range of subjects within their areas of responsibility.

Of course, ministers in the House do likewise. The rationale is that it is not known which minister will be subject to questions on a particular day or which specific area within their portfolio. The briefs, as a consequence, try to cover every possible area of questioning. That was the mischief that was to be dealt with, but it has not come through in the latest iteration at all. In fact, it is not there. One of the main arguments that were put forward originally in Senator Ferguson’s paper is no longer present.

The second part, which goes to the ability for supplementary questions to range around the chamber, as I understood it, and drill down, is now reduced from six to two. You could quite easily say that it has been severely truncated. The rationale for being able to drill down is now gone, because the primary questioner will ask the two supplementary questions. I suspect they will also be written out and that there will not be much change in the procedure that we currently operate under, and they will be prepared in advance of the original question. Time might demonstrate that not to be the case but I will be surprised if it is not. Therefore, that leg has now disappeared in my submission.

The requirement for answers to be directly relevant, as I earlier pointed out, was inextricably linked to the notice provision but is still being retained here. The difficulty will always be that, where a question is provided without notice, the rationale for the minister needing to be relevant to the question was given wide latitude for that very reason. That is now a hook in the current provision without the benefit of the question being put on notice.

Ultimately, that brings us to the point that the benefits that were going to flow and the rationale for relevancy have now been removed as well. I humbly submit that all of the major points that were put forward in the original submission by Senator Ferguson have now been removed. What is left is not a hybrid, not an incremental improvement, but in fact a change to the procedure, with the added bonus of answers being required to be directly relevant without the foregoing notice being provided. The easiest way to examine that, of course, is that question time will still be of one hour’s duration. The length of the interchange between question, answer and two supplementaries is, as my math tells me, seven minutes. The current system is seven minutes, so there is no change to that. Therefore, the only change is that the question is broken into three parts: a question and two supplementaries. The answer is similarly broken up into an answer and two supplementaries. It is still, in my submission, a four-minute answer; it is simply broken up into parts.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a five-minute answer.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might stand corrected in respect of that. Ultimately, the period remains unchanged. Therefore, the ability to demonstrate a significant improvement to this is somewhat watered down, if not lost.

The reforming paper goes to what happened in other parliaments. I think it is fair to say that these matters arose, by and large, in unicameral systems. The current reform does not address the issue—and if I use the word ‘reform’, although I do not think it is even an incremental change—or try to recognise that we are in anything other than a bicameral system with a House and the Senate. The reforming ideas that Senator Ferguson originally put forward in question time are no longer with us, compared to the UK, New Zealand and Canada. However, those ideas did have some merit. I think it is fair to say that, although we had a range of reservations, we were prepared to trial Senator Ferguson’s original proposal to see how it would work in practice. Of course, with many of these things, you have to look at how they will operate both objectively and subjectively. You would undertake a trial—make it a sessional order—to see how it would work in practice. If everyone believed it to be a reform then the trial process would demonstrate that.

I believe we have moved substantially away from the original reform agenda. The numbers in this place will show that it will pass in the format that has been provided for. The government is not warming to the proposal. It obviously understands the numbers in this place and will undertake all of these things. It will turn its mind to ensuring that it is available to answer questions at question time. In Senator Brown’s words, the government will endeavour to provide information to the opposition.

Ultimately, question time is the time for the opposition and the minor parties to question the government in respect of its policies and programs. The government always stands ready to meet that challenge. However, the criticisms I make of this process go to the point that Senator Ferguson’s original idea of reform has been watered down—that is the phrase I would use, but perhaps ‘lost’ is a better way of putting it—by his own Liberals to the point that Senator Ferguson is trying to substantiate what is essentially tinkering with the program. That will then be a sessional order or some such for the remaining two weeks. It is not the original idea that was put forward.

The Senate Standing Committee on Procedure did its first report in September 2008 and finalised the third report in November 2008. The final position was arrived at very late in the piece, if I can say that politely. I think we should reflect very carefully on the way this has changed from the original proposal without the careful consideration that the opposition should have given it, other than their trying to find a way of accommodating an outcome.

It is important in this place to recognise that it does require careful analysis to ensure not only that the changes we make in here continue to allow the opposition, minor parties and Independents to question ministers during question time in an appropriate way but also that the changes we make do not detract from that. Where I am unclear about the way that the process has gone is that we have not arrived at that point. Nevertheless, we will trial this and we will meet it in good faith, as the government is expected to do. As to whether it proves to be a significant reform or simply a gloss around the edges is a matter that I will let others judge.

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

I too would like to speak on this third report of the Procedure Committee of 2008—a report that is dedicated to the issue of the restructuring of question time. I have to say that I consider this to be a very disappointing report—a very disappointing outcome from a very disappointing process. This was an opportunity for the Senate to look carefully at its procedures, particularly the way question time is conducted in the Senate, to see if changes could lead to a better question time with more accountability and more transparency—to make it, to quote the report, ‘a more effective mechanism for seeking the accountability of the executive government to parliament’. This may be thought unusual—particularly given the record of the Howard government over 11½ years—but the government actually support that aim. We support accountability. We support transparency. And we have an excellent record as a new government in relation to parliamentary transparency and responsiveness.

If you look at the 2007-08 financial year, you will see that the average time to answer a House of Representatives question on notice was 207 days before the change of government but only 26 days after the change of government. Similarly in the Senate, the average response time in the 2007-08 financial years was 115 days before the change of government. That reduced to 55 days after the change of government. Senators would particularly be aware of the very significant change in relation to answers provided by government to Senate estimates questions on notice, which have been provided within the appropriate time frames—a very different approach than was the standard operating procedure that applied during the life of the Howard government. So just on issues of responses to questions—in this case questions on notice—there is a very stark difference between the approach that the Rudd government has taken and that of the Howard government. So I think I can mount a strong case for the government’s support for transparency and accountability.

There is no doubt in my mind—there never has been—that the best accountability mechanism that this parliament has is in fact the Senate estimates system. That is my view, but I think it would be a view shared by many on both sides of the chamber. Equally, there is no doubt that question time should be a critically important accountability mechanism—a critically important accountability forum in this parliament. That is why the Procedure Committee’s consideration of approaches to Senate question time should have been, in my view, a very important contribution to the accountability debate in this parliament. But I have to say that this Procedure Committee report is a real let down—a real let down.

I know that Senator Ferguson has been driving these reforms, and I have to say that I feel for Senator Ferguson—who must be, as I am, very disappointed in what the Procedure Committee has reported to the Senate today. I accept that Senator Ferguson had very high ambitions. He was able to produce a lengthy paper with comparisons from a range of other jurisdictions. I think, in broad terms, he settled on the New Zealand model as being a preferred model. I do not think that was entirely the best example to use, or the most appropriate example to use. The point that Senator Brown has made about representational responsibilities in the chamber is relevant here because, as we know, the New Zealand parliament is a unicameral parliament, and there are issues here in relation to the representational responsibilities of ministers. It is particularly relevant in the Senate, given the comparatively small number of ministers who sit in the Senate compared to the number who sit in the House of Representatives.

But Senator Ferguson, supported by his colleagues, originally offered and proposed bold reform to Senate question time: notice was to be given by 11 am on a sitting day and there could be up to six supplementaries from around the chamber—the words ‘around the chamber’ are critically important—so not just from a person representing the party that proposed the primary question. And then it started to get watered down. The opposition, which appeared to be gung-ho in its approach, started to get cold feet. It ran into strife. It got scaled back, as I understand it, to a proposal where notice of a primary question would be given and then a proposal for four supplementaries. I thought that that was a more sensible approach than the six supplementaries and I want to be absolutely frank with the Senate about that. I personally thought four supplementaries was a better approach because I think it gave more opportunity for a broader range of primary questions from senators representing different perspectives, be they opposition, minor parties, independents or government. So I thought that amendment was better. But with four supplementaries, critically, notice of a primary question would still be given. And of course it got scaled back again to two supplementary questions, still with notice but some exchange across the chamber.

What do we have now in the third report of 2008 of the Procedure Committee? This is where we find ourselves: no notice is to be given of questions, which is the same situation as we have now, and then there is the only real change, which is a proposal to change the time limits. That is what is being considered here now. Reform has been reduced to a proposal to change the time limits for question time from the current situation where there is one minute for a questioner to ask a primary question, a four-minute limitation on a minister’s answer to that question, a capacity for a Senator to ask a one-minute supplementary question of a minister and a minister to give a one-minute response to that supplementary question. The astute amongst you who are good at arithmetic can add up that one minute, plus four minutes, plus one minute, plus one minute gives a maximum capacity of seven minutes on any particular matter.

The current proposal for the recommendation for the two weeks of sittings beginning on 24 November this year is to retain that maximum period of seven minutes but with a different make up: one minute for a primary question, and I stress that no notice is given of that, as is the current situation in the Senate; a capacity for a two-minute answer by a minister; then, a one-minute supplementary asked by the original questioner, with a one-minute answer from a minister; and then the original questioner and only the original questioner may ask an additional one-minute supplementary question, with one minute for an answer. As the mathematicians will again tell you, a one-minute question, plus a two-minute answer, plus a one-minute supplementary, plus a one-minute answer, plus a one-minute supplementary, plus a one-minute answer still gives you seven minutes.

But there is a change within this. Previously we had a situation—the current situation that will apply in question time in precisely one hour and 55 minutes and has applied since this proposal was first mooted, when yours truly was Manager of Government Business in the Senate during the life of another government—where a minister had a total capacity to spend five minutes on his or her feet and a questioner had a capacity for a total of two minutes. Of the seven minutes, there were five minutes for the minister and two minutes for the questioner. What changes here is that there will be four minutes for the minister and three minutes for the questioner. That is the real change and the only change, although it is said that answers will be required to be directly relevant, as in the original proposal.

But this comes down to the elements of the original proposal and, as senators vote on this matter, they should give consideration to this. Fundamentally, there were three interrelated elements that the Procedure Committee considered appropriate to address when we examined the way ahead for question time in the Senate. The first element was that notice of a primary question would be given at 11 am in the morning or, for a particularly urgent matter, at 1 pm—but notice would be given. Senator Ferguson, I think rightly, made the point about notice that this would mean that there would be a significant reduction in departments’ time. Agency time would be dramatically reduced in the preparation—that we all know goes on—of what are called ‘possible parliamentary question briefs’, PPQs, or, as some people call them, ‘question time briefs’, QTBs. Call them what they will, a lot of effort goes into these things and the vast majority of them, as everyone knows around the chamber, are never ever used. Senator Ferguson, I think rightly, suggested that this was a massive waste of time in agencies and we could do better by focusing on questions where some notice—it could be broad parameters, but some notice—had been given of the broad topic of the question. That was element 1 in the proposal.

Element 2 was a capacity for genuine follow-through via supplementary questions of an answer given to a primary question by a minister. What were the elements of genuine follow-through, Madam Acting Deputy President? They were basically twofold. The first thing was that more than one supplementary question could be asked, so more than one particular issue could be progressed with a minister. There would be more of the sort of interface—I think this is what was intended—that you see at a Senate estimates committee, of question and answer and follow-through and answer, than we have in question time, which is very formulaic, as we know, in this chamber. That was the first part of the capacity for follow-through, the number of supplementary questions.

But there was another element of it: that these supplementary questions were not just asked by the one questioner themself. In other words, the person who asked the primary question was not the only person who would have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question. So, in the case of what seems to appal everyone around the chamber, probably except me because I just accept this as part and parcel of the way question time works in our democracy, if a dorothy dix question is asked of a minister, the questioner follows through with what has been described as a prepared supplementary. We have all seen people ask these supplementaries. We have seen them typed out for people to ask, regardless of an answer given by a minister. There is no purity about this, and anybody who suggests that there is any purity—in other words, that Labor or non-Labor government ministers have operated any differently—is kidding themself generally. There might be one or two ministers who do not use this mechanism very much but I will not name them.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is very kind of you.

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

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I kept my remarks constrained in the initial stages because I thought we were under some time pressure. Having had half an hour from the government, there are a couple of points I feel I must respond to.

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

I thought you would agree with most of what we said.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with many things that you said, Senator Faulkner, as I always do. The one thing we need to realise in this chamber is that proposals can only pass this chamber if there is some consensus or some general agreement. It is not like the other place, where the government of the day can do exactly what it wants. Under the current configuration we have to have some consensus. So while the ideas that were put forward in the original proposal were ones I still hold to, there has to be an agreement by least two of the parties in this place before we can get anything through at all. I think what we have finished up with is something that people are prepared to give a try. It does not mean that it is the end of the road; it means there may be a chance at some future stage to revisit some of the issues that we have raised and, provided we can get to the stage where the parties concerned do not feel that any of them will be disadvantaged in their questioning, then in fact we might be able to go further.

Senator Faulkner, in his remarks, talked about estimates and how that is the process in which the most answers are given to questions that are asked of ministers and departmental officials. Can I say to Senator Faulkner that, if the answers that are given in this chamber were in any way similar to the answers that are given at estimates, we probably would not even be looking at this change.

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

I don’t consider my answers to be any different to the ones I give at estimates.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner, you are not the only minister in this chamber. As I look at some of your colleagues can I say that, if they gave the answers in this chamber that they give in estimates, in fact we would find that the process would probably not need changing.

The other point I want to make is in relation to relevance. I think the best test of how ministers answer in this place in relation to relevance is to consider that, if a journalist were to put a question to the Prime Minister or to a minister in a press conference in the courtyard, and a member of the opposition were to ask a minister exactly the same question in this place, the two answers would be unrecognisable. If an answer given in this place to questions was given to a journalist, they would walk off in a minute; they would not stay, because the answers bear no relation to many of the questions that are asked. That is the real test. That is the test that government ministers ought to apply to themselves: ‘If I were being asked this question by a journalist on behalf of the Australian public, in the same way that a senator asks a question on behalf of the Australian public, what sort of answer would I give the journalist compared with the answer I give all my colleagues in this chamber—who I think have a first right to get the information they are seeking?’ It would simply not be the same. I think even government ministers would agree that, to some of the direct questions that are asked in this parliament, an answer is never given. The questions are deliberately avoided and they can get away with it in this place while the Presiding Officer can say, ‘There is no point of order; the minister is relevant’, when in fact nobody in the outside world thinks the answer is relevant and half of this chamber does not think it is relevant—and probably the other half know it is not relevant but know that the minister can get away with it. So in real terms we need to use this process much more effectively than we have in the past. I agree, Senator Faulkner, that it is only an incremental change—you know how disappointed I was that we could not go further—but I think that if we make some start it might be a way to a change for the better in the future.

Can I just question your statement in relation to the timing. It is a fact that questioners rarely ever take the minute to ask their questions in this place. That is why we get 12 questions in the hour—because in total we rarely ever spend more than five minutes on questions; sometimes only two or three if the answer is short, although these days that seems to be getting rarer, as most answers seem to take the full four minutes. But I anticipate under this process that questions will be shorter. Most questions only take 15 or 20 seconds. The answers will probably still take four minutes. In fact, we will probably get through more questions in a day—maybe one or two more—than we currently do, because, as I said, it is a rare occasion for any questioner to take a minute to ask their question.

So, while I take note of what the government ministers have said in relation to these proposals, they are proposals that were thrashed out over a long period of time. They are not as comprehensive as I would have preferred, but they are proposals that at least a majority in this chamber are prepared to give a try. All I can say in pleading with the chamber is: give the process a chance, see if it makes any difference—if it does not make any difference, you can revert to what we currently have in place. But I hope that, in making these small changes, it will in fact lead to further changes in the future, once senators and ministers in this chamber get used to it. I commend the report to the chamber.

Question agreed to.