Substance or theatre? - Sep 2023

You may have seen a Liberal Party advertisement in last week’s Post suggesting that I’ve ‘turned my back on transparency’. The ad creatively (but tenuously) links a vote I cast in the House of Representatives on 6 September to a claim that I ‘protected’ the Government from scrutiny about its dealings with Qantas. 

I can tell you now, I won’t be giving attention to every Liberal Party attack you see – I think people have had enough of this sort of politics and I’d rather get on with the job. 

But given that I use this monthly column to talk about the different tools in our democracy, it provides a timely opportunity to discuss procedural matters in the House. 

What was this vote actually about? 

The vote referred to in the Liberal ad was about whether the Speaker was right in ruling that an answer to a question was ‘relevant’, in line with the requirement in the ‘Standing Orders’ (or Parliamentary rule book).  

The Opposition asked if the Government met with Qantas before making a decision about Qatar.  The Minister was responding by talking about her meetings prior to the decision.   

The Speaker ruled it relevant and the Opposition took the unusual step of moving a motion that the Speaker made an incorrect ruling.   

How and why did I vote? 

As with every decision I make in Parliament, I carefully considered the vote on its merits. 

I believe the Minister’s answer was ‘relevant’ in the broad parliamentary interpretation of the word.  It didn’t directly answer the question, which was frustrating and annoying, but it was technically ‘relevant’.   So it was within the rules, even if the rules need to be improved. 

I also don’t support procedural motions when they are being used to score points, instead of on substantive issues. 

What do I think about the Qantas/Qatar issue?  

I agree with the Opposition that the Government isn’t giving straight answers about why it is in the ‘national interest’ to stop Qatar from having more Australian flights.   Last month, on ABC’s Radio National program, I pointed out that competition is good for the national interest and it doesn’t seem to make sense to protect Qantas when it is charging more and flying less.    

How can we get politicians to better answer questions? 

While in this case the answer was technically ‘relevant’, it didn’t directly answer the question, which drives me mad. 

Since joining Parliament, I have been pushing for Question Time reform to obtain more direct answers to questions, supported by the cross bench.  Only a few days before this particular vote, I gave evidence to the Parliamentary Procedure Committee about the need to amend Standing Orders so we can get better, more direct answers.   

I will keep advocating for Question Time reform and I will keep casting each vote on its merits. 

Related video: Declining Faith in Democracy - 30 November 2023