Page 3493 - Week 11 - Thursday, 24 September 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The petition process does not allow the community to hear from other members and other parties in the Assembly, although I note that this term some members from the Liberal Party in particular have started an informal practice, when they table a petition, of making a speech to go with it. Last term that was not something that happened. I think it is a reasonably sensible thing to do; otherwise, the petitions get tabled without a lot of context or insight into where they are coming from or why they arose in the first place. The fact that members have felt the need to start adding that step underlines perhaps the limitations on the petition process in that form.
The MPI debate is a longer and more considered session than simply the tabling of and response to a petition, and it is certainly more considered than a media response. I think that the community would be appreciative of hearing a more considered discussion of issues that concern them rather than just having a two-sentence sound bite in the media or some other feedback like that.
In putting this forward, I am not necessarily suggesting there is anything wrong with the MPI process now. It is certainly not all bad. We have some interesting topics presented to this place by all members. However, we sometimes see a lot of repetition of topics or topics that are basically just reworded to address a topic that has previously been canvassed. There is also no doubt that the MPI process is used to run political agendas. You would expect that in this place, but topics that are contentious or something that a party wishes to highlight or perhaps even grandstand on do feature prominently in the list of MPIs that come forward.
In the lead-up to the election we might imagine that we will see more and more topics that align with what members have identified as being consistent with their election platforms—again, not in itself unexpected or a breach of the rules but a reflection of where things are likely to go. It does not mean it is not a matter of public importance.
We have this opportunity twice every sitting week. I see that as a great opportunity to hear directly from the community what they consider to be a matter of public importance. Hearing directly from the community is different from having something funnelled through a political lens of a party in the Assembly. In some discussions I had with some members about this, the view was put that private members’ business was a way of bringing matters to the Assembly on behalf of the community because they reflected issues raised by constituents. That is true to an extent. However, of course, the nature of private members’ business, and we experience this every Wednesday, is that when an issue comes up like that, it comes up with a political filter on it; it comes up with an agenda; it comes up framed in a way that seeks to often make the other side of politics deeply uncomfortable—rather than being a place where discussion is sought to find a way to a topic.
Even the motion we have just discussed on Auslan demonstrated that the seeking of some sort of political opportunity is very much part of the way Mr Hanson operates in this chamber, for example. The simple referral to a normal admin and procedure committee process for changes to standing orders somehow had a political filter put over it by Mr Hanson.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video