|
representatives vote 2023-09-07#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-01-12 14:04:06
|
Title
Motions — Standing and Sessional Orders- Motions - Standing and Sessional Orders - Let another vote take place
Description
<p class="speaker">Adam Bandt</p><p>I'm presuming that everything has been concluded with respect to those previous bills and we're at a gap in business. I move:</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2023-09-07.23.2) to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - in order to let another vote take place.
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the [Member for Melbourne](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt) from moving the following motion immediately—*
- >
- > *That [standing order 104(a)](https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/05_About_Parliament/53_HoR/532_PPP/Standing_Orders/Chapter_9.pdf?la=en&hash=BD679416C92020F6EA955897D72D1824436B257C) be amended to read: An answer must directly answer the question.*
- ### Text of standing order 104
- > *104 Answers*
- >
- > *(a) An answer must be directly relevant to the question.*
- >
- > *(b) A point of order regarding relevance may be taken only once in respect of each answer.*
- >
- > *(c) The duration of each answer is limited to 3 minutes.*
<p class="italic">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Melbourne from moving the following motion immediately—</p><p class="italic">That standing order 104(a) be amended to read: An answer must directly answer the question.</p><p>People want governments to answer questions, especially during something called 'question time'—not to dodge the question, not to talk about something else, not to answer a question that they wish they were asked but to answer the question. Ministers have huge power. We have been trying all week to get a straight answer about why the minister for environment is approving coal projects. Each time we ask the question—we've got a question time coming up again today, which is why it's critical to get an answer to this—</p> <p class="speaker">Mike Freelander</p><p>Sorry, the member for Melbourne. Did you seek leave to suspend—</p> <p class="speaker">Adam Bandt</p><p>No, I moved that standing orders be suspended. We have been trying all week to get a straight answer from the minister for the environment about why they have been approving coal projects. We ask a very tight question about it, and we get a minister who talks about renewables, talks about things that happened 15 years ago and talks about anything else other than coal and gas, even though they know it is critical. It is the thing that we are asking about. It is time for straight answers. It is time to answer the question. This is a simple test. We've had it not just this week but year upon year upon year. And it has been Labor and Liberal; this isn't just something that one side does. Every time people come to this place on behalf of the people of this country and try to get a straight answer from a minister, the minister talks about something else. People are sick of it. What we've found out is that it's permissible. It's in the rules to do this, which is why it has gone on for so long. So what we need to do is change the rules, if that's the case. We need to change the rules to require that, when a question is asked, you get the question answered. It may not be the answer that you like, but it is an answer to the question. At the moment, what we know, as we have seen year after year after year, is that, when you ask them a question, they can talk about anything but in their answer. It doesn't matter how tight your question is. It doesn't matter how much preamble you cut off. If you ask a really simple question, you don't get a simple answer.</p><p>Ministers have huge power. Ministers of all political stripes have huge power. The point of this place should be to be able to hold them to account and get an answer to how they're using that power, to understand why in the middle of a climate crisis a minister wants to approve new coal and gas projects. But it seems that no matter how simple and straightforward we ask the question, we don't get a straightforward answer about it. People have had enough. So, if it's within the rules to do that, then we've got to change the rules, and that's what this will do. It is very simple. The new words that are proposed to be included are: 'that an answer must directly answer the question'. Most people in this country would probably think that's what question time is for. So I'm calling on the other establishment parties who for years have just dodged the questions that they're asked to now change the rules so that they'll answer the questions. It's a simple test. Are you prepared to answer the question that the people are asking you and give a straight answer?</p> <p class="speaker">Mike Freelander</p><p>Is the motion seconded?</p> <p class="speaker">Max Chandler-Mather</p><p>It is seconded. There are a lot of reasons why people don't like politicians, but probably way up on that list is that so often they don't answer questions directly. How often have we seen media interviews where politicians of all stripes will dodge and refuse to answer very basic and direct questions? Surely, the one place where ministers should be at least compelled to answer questions directly—actually answer them—is in question time and in parliament. It's an incredibly low bar. In fairness to the Labor government, it has not just been Labor enforcing this rule; it has been years of the coalition government doing it as well. I would argue that the question for both the Labor government and the coalition opposition is: are you going to clear this bar—probably one of the most basic bars for how parliament should function? Are you going to agree to a change in the rules that requires ministers to answer questions directly? It's pretty basic.</p><p>Right now—let's be frank—question time, by and large, is an enormous and extraordinary waste of public resources and everyone's time. On the one hand, often you have government members get up and ask cutting questions, that—I'll paraphrase here—go along the lines of, 'Why is this government the best government in the history of governments?' We get a direct answer to that. Then, on the other hand, we'll get questions, sometimes useful questions, that ministers refuse to answer directly at all, including, recently, the Minister for the Environment and Water, who failed, repeatedly, to give a basic response and directly address why this government keeps approving coal and gas mines.</p><p>It's a basic reform. It's a basic request. I think if the public were asked—it's a pretty basic pub test—'Do we think that, in question time, when a minister is asked a question, they should answer it directly?' 99 per cent of people would say yes. The other one per cent, I suppose, would be government and opposition members and their staff.</p> <p class="speaker">Kate Chaney</p><p>I rise in support of this motion to suspend standing orders and amend standing orders so that questions must be actually answered in question time. I'm new to this place and, coming in last year, new to politics. There's a lot to learn. Some of the things that you learn here make sense and have been built up over the course of the development of our democracy over hundreds of years. Other things don't make sense and are out of step with the opinions of the general public. The inability of a parliament to draft standing orders in a way that means questions are actually answered is one of the things that doesn't make sense.</p><p>The crossbench has been working to try to reform question time, so that some common sense applies, since the beginning of the 47th Parliament. In trying to improve the rules of question time so that we get answers—or what the average person would consider to be answers—we've written to the Leader of the House, we've written to the Manager of Opposition Business, we've written to the Speaker, we've written to the Procedure Committee twice, we've made a submission to the Procedure Committee's current inquiry, and a number of us have also given evidence in a private hearing to the Procedure Committee. Despite all of this work within the rules of the House, we are not seeing any sign of reform in line with community standards. We've met with both sides of the House to try and drive this reform.</p><p>The way this amendment is drafted may not be perfect, but I think that it should not be beyond this parliament to come up with a form of words that actually requires people to give a commonsense answer to questions that are put in question time. Both sides of parliament are used to a style of questioning and answering in question time that means you can avoid it. It is considered clever within the culture of this House if you can avoid giving an answer. But this is not how the community sees it. It really detracts from the trust in our politicians if people do not give straight answers to really simple questions. So I think this is an urgent matter. It is something that our parliament needs to deal with.</p><p>We've had about 83 question times in this parliament, with about 20 questions in each of those question times. That's a lot of questions and a lot of time that we've spent listening to answers that often, if not usually, don't actually answer the question.</p><p>So I support this motion. I think that we can really do better as a parliament to rebuild trust in the community in what we are doing here as leaders and use question time to actually hold the government of the day to account.</p> <p class="speaker">Zoe Daniel</p><p>I also rise in support of this motion. I do believe it is particularly urgent, given the conversations in this House in recent times around the definition of 'relevance'. I think the fact that we're having to have those conversations goes to the very point that 'relevance' is too broad a definition when it comes to answering questions. Indeed, if you even look at the dictionary definition of 'relevance', it refers to something being closely connected or pertinent to or having something to do with the question. I don't think that's good enough for the Australian public. If you look at the definition of 'answer', it is a reply to a question or a correct response.</p><p>I agree with the member for Curtin's position that this is a community trust issue. This government purports to have a view that it wants to do politics differently. I believe that the Leader of the House actually does adhere to that position. I think that now is the time, with community sentiment and social licence for this kind of change, that the government should be seriously considering whether standing orders as they stand are relevant to our community, whether they stand up to scrutiny within our community and whether they meet community expectations.</p><p>I would also add before I finish that, while trust is an enormous factor here—and as a former journalist I have lots of experience in asking politicians questions and not getting answers—there is also the simple matter that the government actually could take some ground here by understanding that it has an opportunity to answer questions directly. It might take some ground in the public popularity stakes by stepping into this space, because I think this is what our communities want. I think that the definition as it stands is too broad. The lack of ability to ask follow-up questions makes it very difficult to get simple answers to questions that the public want to know.</p> <p class="speaker">Monique Ryan</p><p>I also rise in support of this motion to suspend and amend the standing orders such as to require ministers to actually answer the questions asked of them in this place. My constituents of Kooyong want their representative, me, to be able to ask questions of ministers in this House. They expect the government to answer their questions. They deserve that respect. All we ask is that the House improves its own procedures in a way which is modest and reasonable and which requires the ministers of this government to give appropriately detailed and accurate responses to the questions asked of them by the opposition. I commend the motion to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Allegra Spender</p><p>I rise in support of this motion. This country faces real issues, but question time does not deliver answers to those questions that we have to face as a country. It delivers a show for the benefit of the media, but it does not deliver to the young people, to the people in the audience or, frankly, to the Australian people. It is the major parties' shouting match. It is unedifying, and it actually is incredibly detrimental to people's understanding and belief in politicians and in our democratic processes. I had a dinner last night with 30 women who were from around the country, women leaders, who spent 90 minutes in question time and basically asked, 'What on Earth was that all about?'—because it was completely pointless in terms of benefit to the Australian people. It is self-indulgent and wasteful. I think this is an opportunity where we should demand answers to questions. It is not unreasonable that in question time we get reasonable answers to questions. That is what the Australian people expect of us, and that's what we should expect of ourselves.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|