Parliamentary Procedure

Answers to Questions

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:19): I move:

That, during the present session, once a notice of question has been given and placed on the Notice Paper pursuant to standing order 98b, an answer to the question shall be delivered to the Clerk, pursuant to standing order 98c, not more than 30 days after the date on which it had first been printed on the Notice Paper.

Again, brevity is the order of the day. This does not need a long explanation. It has been a subject of much public debate over the last 16 years and some frustration from a number of members, including myself, at the significant number of questions on the Notice Paper that remained unanswered for, in some cases, up to 16 years.

What this does is consistent with most other jurisdictions, albeit the days slightly vary. I think in some jurisdictions it is 35 days and in some it is 30. I think in one jurisdiction it might be 45 days. This sessional order places a requirement on a minister to at least bring back an answer to a question on the Notice Paper within that 30-day period. One cannot always, as is the case in question time, guarantee that the questioner will be satisfied with the quality or indeed the answer that is provided; nevertheless, a minister will be required to provide a response to a question on notice within that 30-day period. I urge members to support what is, in essence, a sensible sessional order.

The other point I should put on the public record is that, in the discussions I have had with the Leader of the Opposition and other crossbench members, I have indicated two things. One is I hope, Mr President, with your concurrence, that the Standing Orders Committee will undertake a body of work in terms of the standing orders of the Legislative Council.

We have made one significant amendment, after decades of not recognising the political reality of the chamber, in appointing for the very first time a prominent member of the crossbench to the Standing Orders Committee to provide his input into the issue of sensible amendment of standing orders. I have had informal discussions with members as to how that process might work. Again, Mr President, it will be an issue for discussion with yourself as a member of that particular committee.

In the long term, most other jurisdictions have this particular requirement in their standing orders, and it would sensibly reside in the standing orders if there was agreement from all parties, which I am sure there will be, but in the absence of being able to bring the Standing Orders Committee together to do that, the sessional order option is a convenient way of doing it, at least for this session, whilst the work of the Standing Orders Committee can be undertaken and at some stage presented to the Legislative Council chamber. With that, I urge support for the motion.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (16:22): I rise to indicate that the opposition will be supporting this motion, but I do so now, upon the remarks of the Hon. Mr Lucas, with some trepidation. I advise you most strongly, Mr President, following the remarks the Hon. Mr Lucas has made, to hold to the glorious traditions that the Legislative Council has inherited and to resist most strongly the revolutionary tendencies of the Hon. Mr Lucas to bring about change to this chamber. It is something that we have done very rarely in the past and I think that is probably for good reason.

In relation to the motion before us, the government tell us that they want to make themselves more transparent and more accountable to parliament. That is all well and good, but then I wonder why, in this motion, the government has chosen such a cut-down version of this process that has been adopted by our sister parliaments around the country. As I say, I am not in any way resisting this. I am seconding it and offering our support, but the Hon. Mr Lucas might like to consider some questions that I will now raise and, either now or in due course, provide us with some response.

What happens if a member of the government and the ministry fails to achieve the timetable that we are outlining here? What punishment is to be meted out to that recalcitrant member who, Mr President, I am sure you will be responsible for superintending? Are we to have a swear jar placed up here next to the Black Rod every time a minister misses his or her due date to give a response, and are they to then cough up $100 out of their own pocket into that swear jar? That would be an encouragement indeed. I wonder, what is the punishment?

What is the recourse should a minister not, in fact, deliver an answer within 30 days? This has obviously been considered around the country. Perhaps the Hon. Mr Lucas has considered this and has advised that it may not be, in fact, workable. I do not know, that is why I am asking the question. However, in Victoria and the ACT, I understand the standing orders outline procedures whereby members can hold ministers to account for failing to meet the required time frame for answering questions without notice. In these jurisdictions, I have been advised that members are able to demand an explanation of the minister and, if one is not given, they are able to move motions without notice relating to that abject failure of ministers to reply.

In the Western Australian Legislative Council, a member who fails to bring an answer to a question on notice is required to stand up after question time and explain when an answer can be expected. I am also advised that the Australian Capital Territory specifies that provisions for answers to questions on notice also extend to questions taken on notice during question time—another revolutionary approach that the Hon. Mr Lucas might be tending towards. As I say, the Hon. Mr Lucas may have already considered this and decided that it is not workable or that it does not work elsewhere. I seek his response to that question. If not, why has the government decided to leave these recourse actions out?

Again, we are supporting the motion. If the government is serious about meeting its election commitments on accountability to parliament, it certainly has a way to go, and this may be a missed opportunity with this cut-down version of the provision. I await the Hon. Mr Lucas's considered response.

The PRESIDENT: I understand there are no other speakers to the motion. Treasurer, you have an opportunity to sum up the debate, if you so choose, and respond to those questions, although the honourable member did give you the opportunity to respond later.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:26): Mr President, I will do both. I will respond briefly. I have looked at the provisions that exist in some other jurisdictions. There have been mixed reports to me. Even though it might be a revolutionary move, as the Hon. Mr Hunter has described it, I think the issue would be actually activating the Standing Orders Committee and having the temerity to invite a crossbencher onto that committee. Revolutionary it may be, but it is the first time I have ever been called a revolutionary.

An honourable member: No, that can't be right.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is, I can assure you. This is the sort of issue that could sensibly be addressed in the Standing Orders Committee. I hope that my three colleagues in this chamber will never have to address that particular set of circumstances; that is, that my colleagues and I will treat this with the seriousness it deserves and that the issue of not providing a response within the 30-day period will never arise. I would hope that is the case and that there is certainly not a flagrant, arrogant ignoring of the sessional order.

Ultimately, my advice in the short term is that it is within the prerogative of the chamber, under our current standing orders arrangements, in terms of either moving motions against ministers or, indeed, insisting on various requirements of a minister in this chamber. All those current powers remain and they are options for the chamber should it so choose. As I said, I hope that we do not have to get to that situation because ministers actually abide by the intention of the motion.

Another technical issue has been raised with me, albeit I do not know that we have run into the problem, and that is: what happens when the house gets up for 35 or 40 days, whatever it is, for that session in August or September—I do not know if it is that long this time—and questions have been asked a week or two weeks before that? We are sure the Hon. Mr Hunter, in those circumstances, would not take offence if they were tabled on the first sitting day after the winter adjournment or, indeed, after the Christmas and New Year adjournment.

Those are the sorts of issues that I understand are technical problems with some of the other jurisdictions as well, but good sense prevails. As long as the minister tables them on the first sitting day. It may well be, when we come to a standing order, that it says 30 days or, in the event that there is an adjournment, the first sitting day after the break, or something. We did not think, in practical terms, given we made this commitment, that it was worthwhile delaying the implementation of the sessional order. We thank the Hon. Mr Hunter for his support for the motion, and that it would appear that the rest of the members in the chamber are going to support the motion as well.

Motion carried.