Page 52 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
was, in effect, a ministerial statement on the part of the minister, that member may seek the leave of the Speaker to respond to the statement, at the conclusion of question time, for a period of not longer than five minutes. This change, I think, acts as a disincentive to ministers to give ministerial statements through question time.
There are, of course, mechanisms for providing for ministerial statements, and the government believes that they should be exercised appropriately and where needed. But this change reflects the fact that, where matters are effectively becoming broader debates or discussions, there is the opportunity for other members to participate in that.
I think it would be worth noting the government’s view that this is not a provision that should be exercised regularly but clearly it does depend, to a degree, on the answers given by ministers themselves during question time. We look forward to seeing how that proposed change operates in practice.
The other changes, again, accord with the commitments given by the government in its agreement with the ACT Greens. In particular, the proposal in standing order 172 is relevant here. The proposal is to provide for bills introduced by the government not being debated in the same sitting period. This is an important change and one that reflects the importance of scrutiny in this place.
Finally, there is a proposed new standing order 254A that deals with a request for explanation concerning a government response to a committee report. Currently we have provisions in place in the standing orders—for example, a failure by a minister to answer within a set period of time a question taken on notice or put on the notice paper and members are entitled after that set period of time to ask ministers a question as to why their question has not been answered—and the same mechanism is now proposed in relation to government responses to committee reports. The proposal is that if, after three months of the presentation of a committee report there has not been a government response to that committee report, the chair of the committee may ask the relevant minister for an explanation as to why a response has not been forthcoming in that time.
I think these are important accountability measures, measures that the government is embracing. We think that they improve the operations of the Assembly and we want to see the Assembly moving forward in a collaborative fashion—in a fashion which engages with all members effectively and makes good use of the time of the Assembly. I commend the motion to members.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (11.58): As Mr Corbell said, these amendments to standing orders have come about because of the ALP and the ACT Greens’ parliamentary agreement. The parliamentary agreement sets out in clause 4 a commitment to an agenda for parliamentary reform.
Amendments to the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly form a very important part of the new direction for the Assembly, and the Greens are immensely proud of having caused these changes to the Assembly process and see it as an important part of the continuing evolution of democracy in the territory. I would like to emphasise the fact that this motion is a Greens initiative and represents our ideas
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .