Page 3864 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and he gave the example that heritage may be one of them. I make this observation: the roster that is put before the Assembly this morning is only for the rest of this calendar year. It is not supposed to be an all-inclusive roster that will roll on and on; it is just for the rest of this year. So as we go into the calendar year 2012, there will be a brand new roster and, of course, it will include the opportunities for the sorts of things Mr Coe is talking about.
I make this other observation about the roster: if you have a look at 20 September, it is the Minister for Economic Development, 25 October, it is the Treasurer, 18 October, Minister for Industrial Relations, 6 December, Minister for Police and Emergency Services. It is not unheard of in this place that those ministries would receive quite significant scrutiny during the standard questions without notice time. It is important to note that we are not talking about those major portfolios. We have given those portfolios a listing because, if you like, the agencies or responsibilities contained underneath those ministries do not necessarily have expression in the administrative arrangements orders, such that, if we were talking about heritage, do we have a minister for heritage? I do not think so any more. So, if Mr Coe, for example, wanted to do that, we would put that major portfolio in this roster on the understanding that it is not the major portfolio under scrutiny.
I understand the process will be that it will be at the Speaker’s discretion as a question is pulled out of the ballot as to whether it is in. One of the reasons it will be judged in order or out of order is, if it pertains to the major part of a portfolio, like Treasury, it will be ruled out of order for this segment. The questioner will then be invited to put it in as a question on notice or put it in as a question without notice at the next opportunity. So it is the intent that this be the subordinate parts and not the others.
I also make the observation that, thanks to Mr Corbell’s suggestion that there not be two consecutive questionings of a minister, it is worth noting that, in the roster before the Assembly today, Ms Burch, who carries quite a number of portfolios, does not get two consecutive opportunities, if you wish, to do this supplementary question time, but she gets every second one. Every alternative question session will be for Ms Burch.
I caution that, in the creation of the roster for next year, we make sure that the opportunity for non-executive members to put the sorts of queries that Mr Coe had in mind when he created the thought to bring this forward is spread across all of the ministers, whatever number that may be. Whilst, in fact, one minister here carries a large number of smaller portfolios, each of the ministers have a couple of them. Treasury, for example, has the insurance authority and the Minister for Industrial Relations has WorkSafe. So we need to make sure that there is balance here and that this is not an opportunity to target a particular minister for party-political purposes.
This is about scrutiny. I take the point that Ms Bresnan makes—the provision of this roster in the public arena means that concerned members of the community or community organisations that have an interest in a particular portfolio will know and be able to schedule their diaries to come into the Assembly if necessary or, indeed, contribute their concerns to non-executive members of whatever colour to create the questions that go to that particular minister. I think that is positive. I think that is a way in which we can engage with the community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video