|
representatives vote 2022-09-05#2
Edited by
pizza1016
on
2022-09-19 07:22:37
|
Title
Description
-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent) to amend the sessional orders so that crossbenchers (minor party and independent MPs) receive priority to ask questions at an earlier time during Question Time. [Sessional orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) are temporary procedural rules of parliament that expire when parliament is prorogued (suspended by the Governor-General) or dissolved (dispersed for new elections), allowing MPs to try out new rules before deciding whether to make them permanent.
Previously, crossbenchers received priority for questions to ministers on the 5th, 13th and 21st questions of Question Time, [as agreed to at the start of the 47th Parliament](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-07-27/1). This motion changed that rule so that crossbenchers get priority on the 5th, 13th and 17th questions instead. Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent), the mover of the motion, argued that:- Previously, crossbenchers received priority for questions to ministers on the 5th, 13th and 21st questions of Question Time, [as agreed to at the start of the 47th Parliament](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-07-27/1). This motion changed that rule so that crossbenchers get priority on the 5th, 13th and 17th questions instead. Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent), the mover of the motion, [argued that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2#g108.1):
- > *As I said in [moving urgency](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-09-05/1), the intention of the sessional orders agreed at the beginning of the 47th Parliament was to provide the crossbench with three questions in question time. It has not worked. In five of the seven question times since the 47th Parliament began, the crossbench has only been able to ask two questions and not the agreed three.*
- > *There appears to have been the deliberate use of points of order to waste time to deny the crossbench the 21st question. For members of the crossbench, asking questions without notice is a key tool to hold government to account. Such tactical approaches to reducing the agreed number of questions is cynical and thwarts the agreement between the government, crossbench and, indeed, the opposition on questions. The agreement is not being treated with good faith by the opposition.*
- > *This amendment is designed to restore the original intention of the sessional order that would be in line with the numbers in the House—the government, opposition, Greens and crossbench. This may seem like a small numerical change, but, if we are to be truly representative, it'll make a big difference for the communities that this crossbench represent. All of us on this crossbench may wish for greater reform of question time, but this is a start. I commend this motion to the House.*
- ### Motion text
- > *That all words in paragraph (a) of sessional order 65A be omitted and the following words substituted:*
- > *"(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and seventeenth questions."*
- ### Original sessional order 65a(a)
- > *65a Opportunities for crossbench Members*
- > *Consistent with the principle that the call should alternate between government and non-government Members and to enable crossbench Members to receive the call in accordance with the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House:*
- > *(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and twenty-first questions.*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2022-09-05#2
Edited by
pizza1016
on
2022-09-19 07:18:27
|
Title
Business — Sessional Orders- Business - Sessional orders - Change the priority of crossbench questions during Question Time
Description
<p class="speaker">Zoe Daniel</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That all words in paragraph (a) of sessional order 65A be omitted and the following words substituted:</p><p class="italic">"(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and seventeenth questions."</p><p>As I said in moving urgency, the intention of the sessional orders agreed at the beginning of the 47th Parliament was to provide the crossbench with three questions in question time. It has not worked. In five of the seven question times since the 47th Parliament began, the crossbench has only been able to ask two questions and not the agreed three.</p><p>There appears to have been the deliberate use of points of order to waste time to deny the crossbench the 21st question. For members of the crossbench, asking questions without notice is a key tool to hold government to account. Such tactical approaches to reducing the agreed number of questions is cynical and thwarts the agreement between the government, crossbench and, indeed, the opposition on questions. The agreement is not being treated with good faith by the opposition.</p><p>This amendment is designed to restore the original intention of the sessional order that would be in line with the numbers in the House—the government, opposition, Greens and crossbench. This may seem like a small numerical change, but, if we are to be truly representative, it'll make a big difference for the communities that this crossbench represent. All of us on this crossbench may wish for greater reform of question time, but this is a start. I commend this motion to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Monique Ryan</p><p>I second the member for Goldstein's motion as was stated. The Australian people deserve better from their parliament. They want and expect better from question time. They're disappointed with the ranker and the uselessness of many of the points of order that are raised by the opposition. They want the government to answer questions, rather than asking themselves pointless questions and wasting everyone's time with those. We can do better and we should do better.</p> <p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p><p>I thank the member for Goldstein for this really important motion. I have been here for a little bit longer than some of my crossbench colleagues, but I stand united with them on this issue. The people of Australia are sick of question time. It is performative politics really at its worst. We see mind-numbing dorothy dixers. We see mischievous points of order. The people of Australia demand some transparency and accountability from their parliament, and question time is a time to get that, if we take it seriously.</p><p>We on the crossbench seek real answers to real questions. We are the biggest crossbench since Federation and we undertook an agreement with the sessional orders to have proportional representation at question time. That's not being fulfilled because of many parts of this awful performative politics that is question time—not just mischievous points of order, not just mind-numbing dorothy dixers, not just question time being cut short by the Prime Minister but all of it combined.</p><p>We can make a difference in this place. We can do better, and one way of doing better is making sure that the crossbench get their proportional representation at question time by backing the member for Goldstein. I call on everyone in this parliament to do better and to support this motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Luke Howarth</p><p>The reality is that it's not proportional representation if the Independents get one question and we get two every question time. The reality is that we have about five times as many members as them. The Greens are almost in coalition with Labor, so they've got 12. We've got 58. The reality is that the people in my electorate in Petrie and right around the country expect us to be a very well accounted for opposition, and, if we're not getting questions, how do we hold the government to account?</p><p>I would expect better from the member for Indi and the member for Mayo and the member for Kennedy and all those members that have been here for some time. The reality is that in my time in this parliament—and I've been here for four terms; three terms in government, the first time in opposition—every member that's come in here and spoken today hasn't been here before. They weren't here when Labor has been in opposition. They weren't here for the points of order that Labor raised, the change in standing orders and the motions moved against the government in the last two terms.</p><p>It's really not fair for Australians if we have one question from Independents and then, more or less, two questions from the opposition: The opposition should be getting more questions than that. The Labor Party and the Manager of Government Business shouldn't be supporting this motion. They should be making sure that the opposition gets its fair share of questions and, if they don't want to do that, the Prime Minister should sit question time longer.</p><p>I remember that, in the last term, in the 46th Parliament, during COVID, the member for Cook, the former Prime Minister, would quite often have question time going through to about 20 to four. Question time did not end at 10 past three; it went from 2.00 to 3.30 and often 2 to 3.40 to make sure those questions were answered. So really, for all Australians listening, this is not good for democracy. It isn't representational of the 151 members in this parliament.</p><p>The Australian people know that the Greens are more or less part of the Labor Party, and that leaves 12 independents. When I look over there, I count maybe one or two of them that perhaps would sit with our side of the parliament. The other 10, through their contributions here today and their reflections on the opposition, really have shown their true colours, and the people of Kooyong and other seats need to be aware that their members are supporting the Labor Party, will continue to support the Labor Party and are not really true Independents. They're also not grassroots members. Through their language, through the way they behave and through their reflections on the opposition, they wouldn't have the slightest clue of what it means to be down here with the people. I'll be really interested to see how these guys go at the next election—</p> <p class="speaker">Government Members</p><p>Government members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting.</p> <p class="speaker">Luke Howarth</p><p>because the reality is that this is not fair. It's not right. It weakens our democracy. The Prime Minister gets up and talks about the Westminster system, but he wants to change it so the opposition doesn't get its proportional representation of questions. The fact is that they have about 20 per cent of what we have. They should be getting one in every six questions, and the government wants to support them in weakening the voices of the opposition to suit themselves. It's just not on.</p> <p class="speaker">Zali Steggall</p><p>I heard the words expressed by the member for Indi. Being in my second-term, I do support and agree with some of the statements that have been made by the opposition as well as some of the statements made by the member for Goldstein. I say that the spirit and intent of standing order 65(a) was on the assumption that question time would go to 3.30, which it routinely did in the previous parliament, and it has been cut short in this parliament to date. It was on the assumption that there are 22 questions in the parliament, which is, again, what often occurred in the previous parliament. Both sides of politics have on numerous occasions used question times to interrupt and delay. There was suspension of standing orders during the previous parliament by the now government. There are now multiple points of order. In the last parliament, the Speakers enforced that there would only be one point of order per question. Maybe is a way of returning to a prompt and more effective use of question time.</p><p>In representing a community, I should say the community does want question time to be more effective. You are kidding yourselves if you don't think the public watches this and cares. We are wasting the public's time and money when it is all show and not a genuine questioning of government. We have now had over 100 days since the election, and this is our eighth sitting day. We are here to hold the government to account and ask serious questions. It is important, and it is important that we have proportional representation here in questions. I support the motion because we haven't been getting to proportional representation. The crossbench is 22 per cent of the opposition and, as such, there is a third question, but I would urge the government to have a proper sitting of question time to ensure that we have a full length of questions occurring.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the motion be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2022-09-05.102.2) introduced by Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent) to amend the sessional orders so that crossbenchers (minor party and independent MPs) receive priority to ask questions at an earlier time during Question Time. [Sessional orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) are temporary procedural rules of parliament that expire when parliament is prorogued (suspended by the Governor-General) or dissolved (dispersed for new elections), allowing MPs to try out new rules before deciding whether to make them permanent.
- Previously, crossbenchers received priority for questions to ministers on the 5th, 13th and 21st questions of Question Time, [as agreed to at the start of the 47th Parliament](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-07-27/1). This motion changed that rule so that crossbenchers get priority on the 5th, 13th and 17th questions instead. Goldstein MP [Zoe Daniel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/goldstein/zoe_daniel) (Independent), the mover of the motion, argued that:
- > *As I said in [moving urgency](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-09-05/1), the intention of the sessional orders agreed at the beginning of the 47th Parliament was to provide the crossbench with three questions in question time. It has not worked. In five of the seven question times since the 47th Parliament began, the crossbench has only been able to ask two questions and not the agreed three.*
- > *There appears to have been the deliberate use of points of order to waste time to deny the crossbench the 21st question. For members of the crossbench, asking questions without notice is a key tool to hold government to account. Such tactical approaches to reducing the agreed number of questions is cynical and thwarts the agreement between the government, crossbench and, indeed, the opposition on questions. The agreement is not being treated with good faith by the opposition.*
- > *This amendment is designed to restore the original intention of the sessional order that would be in line with the numbers in the House—the government, opposition, Greens and crossbench. This may seem like a small numerical change, but, if we are to be truly representative, it'll make a big difference for the communities that this crossbench represent. All of us on this crossbench may wish for greater reform of question time, but this is a start. I commend this motion to the House.*
- ### Motion text
- > *That all words in paragraph (a) of sessional order 65A be omitted and the following words substituted:*
- > *"(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and seventeenth questions."*
- ### Original sessional order 65a(a)
- > *65a Opportunities for crossbench Members*
- > *Consistent with the principle that the call should alternate between government and non-government Members and to enable crossbench Members to receive the call in accordance with the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House:*
- > *(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and twenty-first questions.*
-
-
|