Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1762 ..

MR BERRY (3.30): Mr Speaker, I move:

That standing order 113A be amended by adding "or, where a non-Executive Member has notified the Speaker that another non-Executive Member will ask a question on their behalf, the Member so nominated has been given the call.".

This should not take too long. The motion which I have proposed for consideration by the Assembly has been specifically designed to increase the accountability of government. It would enable non-Government members, and indeed the two backbench Government members, to proxy their right to ask questions to another member if that member has a particular line of questioning he wishes to pursue in relation to a Minister.

In practical terms, for the Labor Party that would mean that we would wish to have one or more of our members ask all of the questions of a particular Minister in question time so that the line of questioning remained on track and made the relevant Minister more accountable. It would assist the interrogation of Ministers about their portfolio responsibilities. The Greens might like a particular line of questioning that the Labor Party is pursuing and they might proxy their right to ask questions to members of the Labor Party, or vice versa.

The same might apply in respect of Mr Moore. Mr Moore might have a particular line of questions that the Labor Party, the Greens or Mr Osborne likes, and they could proxy to Mr Moore their right to ask a question. On the other hand, the crossbenchers might argue that this gives the political parties more ability to question Ministers.

Mr Osborne: Why would you be doing this? Is it out of the goodness of your heart?

MR BERRY: Mr Osborne interjects, "Why would you be doing this?". I will repeat what I said earlier. Take me as an example. I may wish to ask two or three questions, or another question may develop during question time in relation to, say, health matters which I might wish to pursue Mrs Carnell on. In the case of Mr Kaine, I might wish to pursue a particular line of questioning or additional questions in relation to industrial relations in order to make the Government more accountable. It is not as if we are trying to set new standards. This is a process which is followed in the Federal Parliament and in other parliaments. It is not an unusual process. This is about the Government being made more accountable.

My understanding is that I do not have the support of sufficient members to carry this motion. That is what I have been informed. I think people are making a grave mistake in taking that view and are taking a short-sighted approach to this particular proposal. All of the people on the crossbenches who now indicate that they will oppose this particular motion have in the past claimed that they want to make governments more open and accountable. Of course, the Greens and the other crossbenchers may not now wish to see the Government that they have supported made more accountable, because it is becoming embarrassing. It is most important that members support this motion.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .