Page 793 - Week 02 - Thursday, 23 February 2012

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

---

question time that we do. We have got a process here where there actually is that scrutiny provided. Having the additional supplementary has been an excellent initiative as well. We have got that scrutiny here for question time, and it is something which the UK parliament does not have.

While this was worth trying, it did not work out in this instance. It was definitely not set up to fail; it was something we all agreed on in admin and procedures. But we do feel at this point that it is not worth going ahead with the current proposal.

MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (4.47), in reply: I thank members for their contribution. Mr Coe’s original idea was to simply extend question time by having a rostered minister, a rostered portfolio. Sorry about this, but it does not just simply extend question time. The standing orders allow the timing of question time to be such time that every member who wishes to has an opportunity to ask a question. We would need to extend that into the rostered ministers situation as well; otherwise it would be quite a different system altogether. Indeed, that is what transpired.

I, like Ms Bresnan, would like to reject quite vehemently the notion that this was a system designed to fail. It was a system or a suggested change which was predicted by some to fail, but it was not one designed to fail. For Mr Coe’s knowledge, admin and procedure has never worked that way. It has always worked as a consultative forum, with the processes and the procedures of parliament being paramount. I think that even the hint of a suggestion that it was designed to fail is offensive to that committee.

As I said before, we thank Mr Coe for bringing the matter forward. We gave it a good hit. When we first talked about it, I said that I did not think it was going to work. I said, “Give it a run, but I do not think it is going to work.” I said: “What will happen? If it is just a real-time exercise in trying to receive information, we will see.” I said, “If it is a political exercise, it will be treated as such.” I think it is fair to say that it was pretty much the same political exercise as questions without notice, and therefore in itself it was destined to fail—not designed to, but destined to. And fail it did. But again I reiterate my appreciation to Mr Coe for at least having a go to try and change something in a system and introduce another piece of scrutiny into the parliament.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Question put:

That Mr Hargreaves’s motion be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

---

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