Question Time Sessional Order

Adjourned debate on motion of the Hon. S.G. Wade:

That the Standing Orders Committee considers a six-month trial of a sessional order requiring a minimum number of non-Government questions each sitting day.

(Continued from 15 October 2014.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (20:46): As the Government Whip in this house, on behalf of the government I oppose the motion. Since I became Government Whip I have been working closely with the Opposition Whip, the Hon. John Dawkins, and you, Mr President, to have a system of questioning where both the opposition and the crossbenchers get the majority of the questions. The order of the questions now is a lot simpler to understand and follow: that is, the first three questions go to the opposition and then a question from the government, from the crossbenchers and the opposition. We then repeat this order of government, crossbenchers, opposition, and so on.

This system of order of questioning, which has been agreed to by all of us—the whips and the President—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: When? That is you two.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: No, three. On average it gives the opposition at least five questions and sometimes up to seven questions. The crossbenchers get around three and sometimes four questions, and the government gets three, or may get four if there are fewer interjections. If you look at the first 12 questions, which is the general average, the system gives the opposition six questions, the crossbenchers three and the government three. Therefore, nine questions out of the first 12 questions are from non-government members, which is 75 per cent. To me that is very high.

On top of that, both the opposition and crossbenchers have asked many supplementary questions, sometimes up to 14 questions. There are a lot of questions there. I noticed today that there were only five or so supplementary questions, and we were able to get 17 questions in. Eight were from the opposition, five were from the crossbenches and four from the government. Roughly, if you work out the maths, it is more than 76 per cent of the questions—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: One day. Do the average.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: You set us up.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: No, I'm going back to my previous point. If you look at the first twelve questions, nine out of the 12 first questions came from non-government members, so that is 75 per cent. Today we improved a little bit and got up by 1 per cent, so that is 76 per cent. Mr President, the order of questioning that the opposition whip, and you and I have agreed to—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: The gang of three.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: The gang of three, that's right—and I know the Hon. Mr Parnell also had some input, is functioning very well. I do not think it is necessary to move a motion in this house about this matter to have a set minimum number of questions because you might end up with less. If honourable members feel we need to have a committee to work this through because there are other issues that I am not aware of, then we should meet and work it through. However, the Hon. Mr Dawkins (the Opposition Whip), the President and I, as far as I know, are not aware of any issues that have arisen since I have been here. If I knew about it, the three of us would meet and try to sort it out.

I know a few weeks ago the Hon. Mr Dawkins had a problem with questioning because one of my staff accidentally removed one of the opposition's questions, and he picked it up and we were able to sort it out because there was a typo. We do work cooperatively and try to sort things out behind the scenes. If the crossbenchers feel that we have been too generous in giving the opposition six questions out of the first 12 questions and that is too many, I am happy to rearrange and make it less.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: More crossbench.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Yes, for sure. Likewise, if the opposition feel that they are getting too many questions—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: I think I can say that there are times when we haven't got six questions.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: The first 12 you counted, you do get six. If you feel like you are getting too many questions, maybe we could go back to the previous parliaments when the opposition got less questions. I know the government recognises that we do not have the numbers to support our position so the government is willing to have the Standing Orders Committee consider the number of questions asked each sitting day.

As part of the committee's considerations it may be worthwhile looking at the often lengthy explanations given by members when asking their questions. Perhaps if these were kept briefer, there would be more time to ask more questions, like today. Further, there are occasions when members are given the opportunity to ask a question and their question contains many sub-questions of four, five, six or even as many as seven parts. Responding to these types of questions can require a great deal of work to collect and research the relevant information to provide answers.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: You don't provide answers.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Try to. Perhaps consideration should be given to limiting the number of parts of each question to ensure more members get an opportunity to ask individual questions. The number of supplementary questions asked in addition to the original question is also sizeable. Again, maybe this needs to be looked at more closely so as to limit the number of supplementary questions asked to, again, allow a greater opportunity to other members to ask questions that they are interested in seeking answers to.

As I said earlier, I do not have a problem with the Standing Orders Committee working this or some other issues through, but I do not think there is a need to set a minimum number of questions for non-government members when we already have a workable system and when there are a lot more questions that non-members are able to ask. I look forward to hearing other members give reasons why they moved this motion, because I am keen to know; I am puzzled.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (20:55): Earlier today I made an observation that when it comes to government members deciding whether or not to support inquiries they were genetically predisposed to just say no, and I think that what we have here is another good example. It is hard to think of a more meek and mild motion than the one before us. The Hon. Stephen Wade thinks that this is groundbreaking and that constitutional law textbooks will be written in the future focusing on this initiative and people will say, 'Do you remember what you were doing when Stephen Wade moved that motion?'

But it is a fairly modest motion asking that the Standing Orders Committee consider a six-month trial. I am just refreshing my memory as to the composition of the Standing Orders Committee. I note that it is a five-person committee: the President, the Hon. Gail Gago, the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Hon. Tung Ngo, and the Hon. David Ridgway. One thing that we might want to look at—not today, but at some stage—is whether the crossbench ought to be represented on a Standing Orders Committee. It certainly was not something that we pushed at the time that committee was established after the election, but I think it will be something we need to look at.

I think the Legislative Council does need to keep a certain amount of flexibility around question time. I am a regular watcher of question time in the Senate, for example, and they have very strict rules on how long the question can be and how long the answer can be, and effectively there are two compulsory supplementary questions attached to each original question as well. That seems to be a little bit too prescriptive, and I do not think we need to go that far.

One model that I would like the Standing Orders Committee to look at is whether question time can be determined to be of variable length that relates to either the time that has passed or the number of questions that have been asked. In other words, it could be that question time goes until a minimum number of non-government questions have been asked or one hour, whichever is the later. Of course, simplistic formulas can bring their own problems, and that is why I think the consideration of a six-month trial is a good way to go rather than trying to lock something in for the remainder of the term because, as we know, some members ask questions with long or longer explanations.

One of the reasons we got through a large number of questions today is that a number of opposition members made no explanation; they just got straight in and asked the question. Of course, you can get more through that way. The other thing to consider is that a number of times, given that we only have two ministers here and on the crossbench we often ask questions that are referred to ministers in another place, and they take no time to answer, just the formality of—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: A long time to get an answer.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. John Dawkins rudely interjects that it takes a long time to get an answer, and that is right. People ask me about parliament and how it works and question time and I say, 'Well, it's called question time; it's not called answer time. We don't get answers.' I think this is a modest motion. It is deserving of support. It is asking the Standing Orders Committee to consider a six-month trial.

If the motion does succeed and the Standing Orders Committee does propose a trial, then I would urge it to consider those different variables that I have raised just now in terms of whether question time is limited by the effluxion of time or the number of questions or a combination of both, and that consideration also be given to whether some allowance could be made for questions that are referred to ministers who are not in this house, but the Greens are certainly happy to support this motion now.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (21:00): Very briefly, Dignity for Disability certainly supports this motion. I have been very privileged and pleased to participate in the discussions that have been going on with particularly the opposition and crossbenchers about how we can improve procedures, particularly in the council. This is one step towards ensuring that we do that. It is important that we keep in mind that, when we talk about making the running of the parliament more efficient, it is not only about ensuring that we get questions that we are asking answered, or that we have the opportunity to ask those questions for our own purposes.

The reason that we, particularly those of us on the crossbench, ask those very questions is because they are questions that members of the community are themselves asking and wanting answers to. It is just that they do not have the same privileges as we do in being able to ask those questions in this format. So, it is important to remember that, by being respectful to members of parliament, the government is in turn being respectful to members of the South Australian community. Dignity for Disability would like, of course, to see more crossbenchers and indeed all members given adequate chances to ask adequate questions but, more importantly, we would like to see those questions answered.

It was interesting to hear the Hon. Mr Tung Ngo commenting in his contribution on the issue and quoting statistics on this particular week's question time because, as I think has already been pointed out, this week has been rather irregular. This is the first time that the government has behaved, I would boldly suggest, since parliament recommenced in May. I and Dignity for Disability, with many other members I am sure, hope that this will soon become the norm. With those brief words, I certainly commend the motion.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (21:02): I rise to support this motion. I appreciate and enjoy the company of the honourable Government Whip, who did a valiant job in trying to put forward a reason on behalf of the government, not himself, as to why we should not be supporting this motion. I know that statistics are interesting, but there are comments about 'statistics, statistics and damn lies'. I am not suggesting for one moment that the honourable whip would tell a fib but, if you actually only use the statistics for one day, it is a long bow to draw. What you need to do is go back at least 12 months and actually have a look day by day at the quantity of the questions, and then you might get some statistics that are relevant.

I respect his good and valiant efforts, but I do not take them into account in changing my thoughts on behalf of Family First on this. Sir, I put on the public record, to give credit where credit is due, that you have tried to expedite answers so that we can get more questions through in the last several sitting weeks. I have noted that, and I appreciate that as a crossbencher. Notwithstanding that, the reality is that we do not have 13 ministers in this house: we have two. We should have three and probably four. This is not the time for the debate on that, but I just thought I would put that on the public record.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It is just that nobody is appointable—that's the problem.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Notwithstanding all of that, we could have a motion on all of that and why, what and if not. But to come back to the point, the reality is that, quite frankly, the lack of questions that crossbenchers and opposition members get has been appalling.

I have a fundamental belief that question time should be a proper question time for an hour. This Dorothy Dixer stuff about questions without notice when they are absolute Dorothy Dixers and filibustering simply to take up half an hour of question time, we really need to reform all of that, and I will tell you why. The fact of the matter is that the government has all the spin doctors, they have all the budgets, they have all of the functions to open, the ribbons to cut, and they have the media all over them wanting to hear from them any time they want to give a press conference.

There is so much in the favour of the government, I really do not think they need to ask any questions during question time because they can ring their minister or send them an email and, if the minister is too busy, one of the 30 or 40 staff, direct and indirect, between the minister's office and those assigned from the agency and department, can answer all of that for them, and I have seen it happen. When there is a really quick response needed, that happens.

If I had my way, I would move a motion that there be no questions to the government from government members, that we would have a proper democratic process of a whole hour of questions. When I was a minister, I would have appreciated that because on one occasion I had one of my own members ask me a question, and that got a bit tricky.

To get back again to the point, let's make question time democratic, let's make it open and transparent, and let's get through as many questions as we possibly can. Further to that, can we actually get answers to the questions on the spot? I put it to you that, if a minister is getting $100,000 more than the rest of us, which is often equivalent to the income of a two-income family, in additional salary because they are a minister, they ought to be on top of their subject, and they should not have to have half a metre of folders and notes.

They ought to do their homework, and they should be able to answer the questions. Fair enough, they are not going to be a guru who knows everything, but if there is something they legitimately do not know, they can take it on notice, get their staff working and get back in here the next day and table the answer—simple as that. It is not hard. It is just the fact that they do not want to be embarrassed or they do not want to do the work, or both.

With those words, when it comes to this motion, Family First supports the Hon. S.G. Wade, and we ask that the Standing Orders Committee considers a six-month trial of a sessional order requiring a minimum number of non-government questions each sitting day. I commend the motion to the house.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (21:07): I thank all the honourable members who made a contribution on the motion. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire reminded us of the quote in relation to statistics being, I think, 'lies, damned lies and statistics'. Out of my respect for Mr Ngo, I think that I would prefer to use the quote that 'statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination'.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, it wasn't a reflection on drinking habits. All I was saying is that statistics can be used for different purposes. So, let me play with some statistics. In the 1996-97 parliamentary session, on average, the number of questions asked without notice was 10. My understanding is that, at that time, we had two members of the Legislative Council on the crossbench. In 2006-07, when Mr Finnigan and I were enjoying the first flush of parliamentary service, the number of questions without notice reached a record in recent decades of 15, and at that stage we had seven crossbenchers.

So, in a 10-year period, you had a huge increase in the crossbench. Then in the last period, it has diminished such that, in the last parliamentary session, there were fewer than 12. I think that it is very important for the major parties, after 30 years since the reforms, to realise that things have changed. This is not just a meeting of the big parties in the room with a different colour. There has been a fundamental change in the composition of this place. We now have a record number of crossbenchers.

The Hon. Mark Parnell reminded us that, unlike members of the major parties who have colleagues in the other place who can ask questions directly of their colleagues, the crossbench members of this place need not just to engage the ministers in this place but also ministers in the other place through questions without notice. So I would put it to the house that the increased number of crossbenchers increases our responsibility to make sure that we maintain our effort in terms of questions without notice just so that every political group represented in this place—and after all, it was the people of South Australia who decided to put each group in here—has an opportunity to have questions asked from its perspective.

I think it is very concerning in that context, not that the numbers vary from time to time and year to year, but that over recent years there has been an ongoing decline at the same time as we are experiencing an unprecedented number of crossbench MPs. In making that observation, I hope I am not doing the statistics a disservice or misrepresenting the situation, and I am certainly not trying to reflect on the service of the Hons Mr Ngo, Mr Dawkins and the President. I think it is widely recognised in this place that those three gentlemen take on a cooperative approach, not just between themselves but also in terms of engaging the crossbench.

I do not blame them for the system we have inherited, but what I put to the Hons Mr Ngo, Mr Dawkins and the President is that we could make it easier for you to properly run the house if we had a better set of rules. I was a bit surprised that the Hon. Mr Ngo said, 'What is your problem?' in the politest possible way because I thought the problem was pretty clear. The frustration in this place when we have longwinded, irrelevant answers is almost palpable.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Did you say 'irrelevant answers'?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That is what I felt it was. Did I say 'relevant'? If so, I meant longwinded and irrelevant. Hansard will make me make sense later. I thank honourable members for raising other issues. The Hon. Mark Parnell rightly highlighted the issue of referred questions and should they be in the count, so to speak, and whether it would be better to have a mix of time and number of questions. I think the Hon. Tung Ngo raised the issue of longwinded explanations and overly complex questions. I agree that all of those are valid matters that the Standing Orders Committee could discuss.

I know it is a bit cheeky really to have the suggested solution in the reference to the Standing Orders Committee, but the Standing Orders Committee is fully able to take control of the issue and come back with any solution they wish, including addressing other issues that it sees fit. With those comments I thank all honourable members for their contributions and for their indications of support. I look forward to the consideration of the committee.

Motion carried.