John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I too would like to speak on this third report of the Procedure Committee of 2008—a report that is dedicated to the issue of the restructuring of question time. I have to say that I consider this to be a very disappointing report—a very disappointing outcome from a very disappointing process. This was an opportunity for the Senate to look carefully at its procedures, particularly the way question time is conducted in the Senate, to see if changes could lead to a better question time with more accountability and more transparency—to make it, to quote the report, ‘a more effective mechanism for seeking the accountability of the executive government to parliament’. This may be thought unusual—particularly given the record of the Howard government over 11½ years—but the government actually support that aim. We support accountability. We support transparency. And we have an excellent record as a new government in relation to parliamentary transparency and responsiveness.

If you look at the 2007-08 financial year, you will see that the average time to answer a House of Representatives question on notice was 207 days before the change of government but only 26 days after the change of government. Similarly in the Senate, the average response time in the 2007-08 financial years was 115 days before the change of government. That reduced to 55 days after the change of government. Senators would particularly be aware of the very significant change in relation to answers provided by government to Senate estimates questions on notice, which have been provided within the appropriate time frames—a very different approach than was the standard operating procedure that applied during the life of the Howard government. So just on issues of responses to questions—in this case questions on notice—there is a very stark difference between the approach that the Rudd government has taken and that of the Howard government. So I think I can mount a strong case for the government’s support for transparency and accountability.

There is no doubt in my mind—there never has been—that the best accountability mechanism that this parliament has is in fact the Senate estimates system. That is my view, but I think it would be a view shared by many on both sides of the chamber. Equally, there is no doubt that question time should be a critically important accountability mechanism—a critically important accountability forum in this parliament. That is why the Procedure Committee’s consideration of approaches to Senate question time should have been, in my view, a very important contribution to the accountability debate in this parliament. But I have to say that this Procedure Committee report is a real let down—a real let down.

I know that Senator Ferguson has been driving these reforms, and I have to say that I feel for Senator Ferguson—who must be, as I am, very disappointed in what the Procedure Committee has reported to the Senate today. I accept that Senator Ferguson had very high ambitions. He was able to produce a lengthy paper with comparisons from a range of other jurisdictions. I think, in broad terms, he settled on the New Zealand model as being a preferred model. I do not think that was entirely the best example to use, or the most appropriate example to use. The point that Senator Brown has made about representational responsibilities in the chamber is relevant here because, as we know, the New Zealand parliament is a unicameral parliament, and there are issues here in relation to the representational responsibilities of ministers. It is particularly relevant in the Senate, given the comparatively small number of ministers who sit in the Senate compared to the number who sit in the House of Representatives.

But Senator Ferguson, supported by his colleagues, originally offered and proposed bold reform to Senate question time: notice was to be given by 11 am on a sitting day and there could be up to six supplementaries from around the chamber—the words ‘around the chamber’ are critically important—so not just from a person representing the party that proposed the primary question. And then it started to get watered down. The opposition, which appeared to be gung-ho in its approach, started to get cold feet. It ran into strife. It got scaled back, as I understand it, to a proposal where notice of a primary question would be given and then a proposal for four supplementaries. I thought that that was a more sensible approach than the six supplementaries and I want to be absolutely frank with the Senate about that. I personally thought four supplementaries was a better approach because I think it gave more opportunity for a broader range of primary questions from senators representing different perspectives, be they opposition, minor parties, independents or government. So I thought that amendment was better. But with four supplementaries, critically, notice of a primary question would still be given. And of course it got scaled back again to two supplementary questions, still with notice but some exchange across the chamber.

What do we have now in the third report of 2008 of the Procedure Committee? This is where we find ourselves: no notice is to be given of questions, which is the same situation as we have now, and then there is the only real change, which is a proposal to change the time limits. That is what is being considered here now. Reform has been reduced to a proposal to change the time limits for question time from the current situation where there is one minute for a questioner to ask a primary question, a four-minute limitation on a minister’s answer to that question, a capacity for a Senator to ask a one-minute supplementary question of a minister and a minister to give a one-minute response to that supplementary question. The astute amongst you who are good at arithmetic can add up that one minute, plus four minutes, plus one minute, plus one minute gives a maximum capacity of seven minutes on any particular matter.

The current proposal for the recommendation for the two weeks of sittings beginning on 24 November this year is to retain that maximum period of seven minutes but with a different make up: one minute for a primary question, and I stress that no notice is given of that, as is the current situation in the Senate; a capacity for a two-minute answer by a minister; then, a one-minute supplementary asked by the original questioner, with a one-minute answer from a minister; and then the original questioner and only the original questioner may ask an additional one-minute supplementary question, with one minute for an answer. As the mathematicians will again tell you, a one-minute question, plus a two-minute answer, plus a one-minute supplementary, plus a one-minute answer, plus a one-minute supplementary, plus a one-minute answer still gives you seven minutes.

But there is a change within this. Previously we had a situation—the current situation that will apply in question time in precisely one hour and 55 minutes and has applied since this proposal was first mooted, when yours truly was Manager of Government Business in the Senate during the life of another government—where a minister had a total capacity to spend five minutes on his or her feet and a questioner had a capacity for a total of two minutes. Of the seven minutes, there were five minutes for the minister and two minutes for the questioner. What changes here is that there will be four minutes for the minister and three minutes for the questioner. That is the real change and the only change, although it is said that answers will be required to be directly relevant, as in the original proposal.

But this comes down to the elements of the original proposal and, as senators vote on this matter, they should give consideration to this. Fundamentally, there were three interrelated elements that the Procedure Committee considered appropriate to address when we examined the way ahead for question time in the Senate. The first element was that notice of a primary question would be given at 11 am in the morning or, for a particularly urgent matter, at 1 pm—but notice would be given. Senator Ferguson, I think rightly, made the point about notice that this would mean that there would be a significant reduction in departments’ time. Agency time would be dramatically reduced in the preparation—that we all know goes on—of what are called ‘possible parliamentary question briefs’, PPQs, or, as some people call them, ‘question time briefs’, QTBs. Call them what they will, a lot of effort goes into these things and the vast majority of them, as everyone knows around the chamber, are never ever used. Senator Ferguson, I think rightly, suggested that this was a massive waste of time in agencies and we could do better by focusing on questions where some notice—it could be broad parameters, but some notice—had been given of the broad topic of the question. That was element 1 in the proposal.

Element 2 was a capacity for genuine follow-through via supplementary questions of an answer given to a primary question by a minister. What were the elements of genuine follow-through, Madam Acting Deputy President? They were basically twofold. The first thing was that more than one supplementary question could be asked, so more than one particular issue could be progressed with a minister. There would be more of the sort of interface—I think this is what was intended—that you see at a Senate estimates committee, of question and answer and follow-through and answer, than we have in question time, which is very formulaic, as we know, in this chamber. That was the first part of the capacity for follow-through, the number of supplementary questions.

But there was another element of it: that these supplementary questions were not just asked by the one questioner themself. In other words, the person who asked the primary question was not the only person who would have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question. So, in the case of what seems to appal everyone around the chamber, probably except me because I just accept this as part and parcel of the way question time works in our democracy, if a dorothy dix question is asked of a minister, the questioner follows through with what has been described as a prepared supplementary. We have all seen people ask these supplementaries. We have seen them typed out for people to ask, regardless of an answer given by a minister. There is no purity about this, and anybody who suggests that there is any purity—in other words, that Labor or non-Labor government ministers have operated any differently—is kidding themself generally. There might be one or two ministers who do not use this mechanism very much but I will not name them.