Page 3809 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
its willingness to make a number of other changes to the standing orders; we see this proposal as part of that process.
I am familiar with the process that Mr Rattenbury is suggesting in relation to how questions can be asked in question time. I and a number of other members in the government have seen the operations of both the Westminster and New Zealand parliaments, where this approach is generally adopted. It does lead to a more spontaneous question time, and perhaps less of a staged one. If nothing else, it will perhaps add a bit more colour and movement to question time. Heaven forbid that there be any more colour or movement in question time, but nevertheless it will add some element of spontaneity to question time.
It is important to put on the record that the government will be watching how this practice evolves and, in particular, ensuring that a fair share of supplementary questions is made across the chamber. I note Mr Rattenbury’s comments in that regard and I welcome those.
Mr Smyth: That will be up to the Speaker.
Mr Seselja: In accordance with numbers and keenness, I would have thought.
MR CORBELL: That is exactly right. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hear the interjection. It should be done based on the standing orders; it should be done in regard to non-executive members on all sides of the house. I accept that. That is obviously what question time is about—the questioning of the executive. So that is accepted. Nevertheless, the process should also have regard to the other provisions of the standing orders around a member first rising and how the Speaker interprets that. It is important just to put those comments on the record and to stress that that is a matter that the government will want to have regard to in seeing how this is implemented.
Reflecting on how this operates in other parliaments, I had the opportunity to see question time in the New Zealand parliament a few years ago. Whilst they do have this mechanism, the then Prime Minister, Ms Clark, was very good at giving very short answers. Normally she would say yes or no to all of the questions that she was asked, so things moved along pretty quickly.
That said, I think the changes in time limits will have a range of outcomes. They may mean that ministers’ answers will be more concise. They may even mean that ministers are not able to appropriately put in context the issues that they are asked about; that is something that will need to be watched. I know that members are keen to have short and concise answers from ministers, but sometimes the questions that are asked are neither short nor concise. There are often multiple elements to a question or multiple questions within one question, and ministers have to try and answer those in what is increasingly a shorter and shorter period of time. That is just something we need to keep an eye on.
Perhaps in due course there may be a need to reflect on how many questions within a question members can ask if ministers are going to be asked to answer a question
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .