Parliamentary question without notice | Parliamentary Reform
11/02/2015
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills questions regarding the work our Victorian counterparts are undertaking to reform parliamentary accountability.
Leave granted.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I note that, with the resumption of the Victorian parliament this week, the newly-elected Labor government in our neighbouring state has undertaken a bold reform agenda of their parliamentary processes. In Victoria, the state Labor government will introduce a series of parliamentary reforms, which include the abolition of Dorothy Dixer questions asked by government members of their own government. This was a pre-election promise of the Labor Party, where they admitted that the practice is ‘a total waste of time’.
The reforms also discuss ordering ministers to answer questions directly, succinctly and factually and that, if the Speaker decides that the question has not been answered adequately, ministers may be forced to write a letter of explanation. My questions are:
1.Will the minister, as leader of government business in this place, commit to a ban on Dorothy Dixer-style questions?
2.Would the minister, in the interests of accountability, be prepared to provide a written explanation if the President deemed that the answer to the question was not adequate?
3.What other measures might the minister consider to improve efficiency in this place so that particularly non-government members can get the information they require out of ministers to properly inform and assist their constituents?
The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers): I thank the honourable member for her most important questions. Let me say that I believe that government questions can play a very important role, and I would be most reluctant to follow the path of the Victorian reforms in that respect. They can play a very important role in allowing the backbenchers to raise issues and matters that are important to them and ways of profiling particular issues of government interest. So, I think that they play a very important role. In relation to answering questions, I believe that ministers make every genuine attempt to answer questions directly and succinctly—
Members interjecting:
The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I don’t think I could do an eight-minute response to this question; it would depend on how many interjections and supplementaries I had. We attempt at all times in a most genuine way to answer questions directly and succinctly, and I am sure, on behalf of all ministers here, we will continue that commitment.
In relation to the third part of the question, which was about how else the minor parties and Independents particularly, I think, could access information, I know that my office is always available to assist backbenchers in all their requests. There have been a number of requests from the minor parties, and the opposition, in relation to briefings on both specific issues as they arise and general matters. To the best of my knowledge, we have always made the appropriate either agency people or office people available to provide that information.
We attempt to answer and prioritise particularly any correspondence from parliamentarians. Whether it is our own backbenchers or oppositional crossbenchers, we prioritise that correspondence, because we know how important our role is in representing our constituents and responding to their requests. I think you will find that wherever possible we do respond to that correspondence in a most timely way.
I think that we are always open to fresh and new ideas, so if honourable members have views or ideas about how we can continue to improve the performance and behaviour in this place, I am more than happy to meet with them and hear their ideas, but in relation to those three matters I think I have been quite clear about where we stand at present.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Given that the minister seems pretty well convinced that the best way to get information out of ministers in this place is not in the chamber itself but through their officers, is she perhaps suggesting that we abolish question time altogether?
The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers): I am quite astounded at the member’s response. I did not say that the only way that members could receive information was through briefings. That is an absolute nonsense and quite a disingenuous representation of my response, which was in fact incredibly genuine.
If the honourable member wants to play word games and misconstrue my answers, then she is simply wasting the time of this chamber. She is wasting my time. If she wants to have a genuine discussion and debate about considering options, I have outlined to the member how we might proceed, but I think misconstruing the responses that I give and the information I give is a most disingenuous way to get off in relation to any considerations of further reform.
