Page 792 - Week 02 - Thursday, 23 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think that we should not be perpetuating a system which is essentially a cherry-picking of elements of another system. I think it was a good try. It did not work. It was well worth the effort. I had my reservations because I have never been very big on constant experimentation. We have had some experiments in relation to the way in which we operate in the chamber; they have been, to a large degree, successful. But sometimes we want to stop experimenting, consolidate the ones that were successful and then go on and try something else rather than trying too many experiments in the one year. What we do not see is the relationship between the successful changes and the non-successful changes.
Madam Assistant Speaker, this motion is an administrative tool by the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure to effect the deletion of the rostered question time system. I commend the motion to the chamber.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (4.43): I am disappointed that we are at this point, because this is something that I had foreshadowed—that there would be some complications with the version of rostered questions which was ultimately proposed to this place and then enacted. The version which I had originally envisaged was one that did not have the notice provisions that we have had in this place over the last year or so. In fact, what I said was that we should simply extend question time, with everything else being the same except for the fact that the questions could be directed to only one minister, and not only a minister but a minister with a certain portfolio. That would not have had the administrative burden on the Clerk and the Speaker that the rostered questions in the form that has been enacted have had over the last year or so.
It is a shame that we got to this. I did flag that there were going to be some administrative hurdles as a result of what was proposed, and that is exactly what happened. I would not want to be too sinister or too conspiratorial; however, I do wonder whether this particular model was in some ways designed to fail. That is exactly what has happened, and that happened even after I flagged that this was a likely outcome.
I am disappointed that Labor and the Greens are not interested in reforming it to make it work more smoothly and instead are going to remove this additional avenue to scrutinise the government and to represent the people that we are elected to serve.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (4.45): I will just speak briefly to this. I note that we did believe it was worth while pursuing. As Mr Hargreaves noted, it was discussed in admin and procedures. I acknowledge Mr Coe for bringing forward the idea.
On Mr Coe’s point that it was designed to fail, let me say that that is completely incorrect. It was discussed in admin and procedures. As a committee, we discussed how we could achieve a position. All parties thought this was a good idea to pursue. It was not exactly what Mr Coe put forward, and I acknowledge that, but it definitely was not set up to fail. We all thought it was a good idea to pursue.
The point that Mr Hargreaves made needs to be emphasised again. I understand, as Mr Hargreaves has said, that Mr Coe based this on the procedure that is used in the UK. But it is worth acknowledging again, as Mr Hargreaves said, that there is a very different question time process used in the UK parliament. They do not have the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video