Page 5946 - Week 14 - Thursday, 8 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is a technical motion. It recognises that the change to the nature of question time in the introduction of the rostered question system concludes at the end of this calendar year. We need to have a change to allow for that process and to determine the roster. We are going into February. Admin and procedure will be considering the notion of the rostered question system prior to the next sitting period; this motion merely indicates to the chamber, the executive and the community which ministers will be rostered for which days in February.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (12.27): Whilst Mr Hargreaves did say that it is a technical amendment, it is worth noting that the opposition does have some concerns with the portfolios as they have been rostered, particularly the fact that some of the portfolios have been on the roster relatively recently. The rationale, we have been told, is not to overload any particular minister with the relevant portfolio questions, but I do not think that was the intention of the proposal which I put forward. The intention was to have additional scrutiny for all the minor portfolios—that is, the portfolios that do not get asked the same amount of questions that other portfolios might attract. To that end, it is not about the welfare of the ministers and their ability to answer questions; it is more about this place holding the government to account. So we do have some reservations about the roster as it has been put forward by Mr Hargreaves.
In addition to that, I would like to foreshadow that I will be seeking to have the standing orders amended for rostered questions to make the process somewhat more like what I originally envisaged it would be—far less cumbersome and far more supportive of holding the government to account and promoting scrutiny. At the moment, the process of putting questions on notice is arduous and is not consistent with the other procedures that are in place for question time.
Whilst the amendment is not before the Assembly at this stage, I foreshadow that we will be calling for the removal of the requirement to give advance notice for the questions and to treat rostered question time in a very similar fashion to the way a normal question time operates except that questions can be directed to only one minister and one particular portfolio.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (12.29), in reply: I would like to close the debate and address the point Mr Coe made. In the first part, the point that Mr Coe made was about the actual ministries that were listed in the motion. I have just advised Mr Coe that those particular ministries were as recommended to admin and procedure by the Chamber Support people; they were not something that came from an individual member. I also want Mr Coe and everybody else to realise that there will be a two-month gap between the conclusion of this year and the commencement of the next one. We do not have any idea what may emerge in that period of time which may spark the interest of some members and therefore a quizzing of others.
With respect to the proposed changes that Mr Coe has foreshadowed, I thank him for foreshadowing them. I would like to extend a personal invitation to have a chat about things. I have put an alternative proposal informally to admin and procedure; I would be quite happy to indicate to him the genesis of that proposal and my reasons behind it, by way of advancing the proposal going forward.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video