Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I might stand corrected in respect of that. Ultimately, the period remains unchanged. Therefore, the ability to demonstrate a significant improvement to this is somewhat watered down, if not lost.

The reforming paper goes to what happened in other parliaments. I think it is fair to say that these matters arose, by and large, in unicameral systems. The current reform does not address the issue—and if I use the word ‘reform’, although I do not think it is even an incremental change—or try to recognise that we are in anything other than a bicameral system with a House and the Senate. The reforming ideas that Senator Ferguson originally put forward in question time are no longer with us, compared to the UK, New Zealand and Canada. However, those ideas did have some merit. I think it is fair to say that, although we had a range of reservations, we were prepared to trial Senator Ferguson’s original proposal to see how it would work in practice. Of course, with many of these things, you have to look at how they will operate both objectively and subjectively. You would undertake a trial—make it a sessional order—to see how it would work in practice. If everyone believed it to be a reform then the trial process would demonstrate that.

I believe we have moved substantially away from the original reform agenda. The numbers in this place will show that it will pass in the format that has been provided for. The government is not warming to the proposal. It obviously understands the numbers in this place and will undertake all of these things. It will turn its mind to ensuring that it is available to answer questions at question time. In Senator Brown’s words, the government will endeavour to provide information to the opposition.

Ultimately, question time is the time for the opposition and the minor parties to question the government in respect of its policies and programs. The government always stands ready to meet that challenge. However, the criticisms I make of this process go to the point that Senator Ferguson’s original idea of reform has been watered down—that is the phrase I would use, but perhaps ‘lost’ is a better way of putting it—by his own Liberals to the point that Senator Ferguson is trying to substantiate what is essentially tinkering with the program. That will then be a sessional order or some such for the remaining two weeks. It is not the original idea that was put forward.

The Senate Standing Committee on Procedure did its first report in September 2008 and finalised the third report in November 2008. The final position was arrived at very late in the piece, if I can say that politely. I think we should reflect very carefully on the way this has changed from the original proposal without the careful consideration that the opposition should have given it, other than their trying to find a way of accommodating an outcome.

It is important in this place to recognise that it does require careful analysis to ensure not only that the changes we make in here continue to allow the opposition, minor parties and Independents to question ministers during question time in an appropriate way but also that the changes we make do not detract from that. Where I am unclear about the way that the process has gone is that we have not arrived at that point. Nevertheless, we will trial this and we will meet it in good faith, as the government is expected to do. As to whether it proves to be a significant reform or simply a gloss around the edges is a matter that I will let others judge.