Question time today (13 August) felt a little bit repetitive. Once again a finance question about inflation and interest rate hikes started off the question time directed at Minister Minchin (I do not envy his position) who then set off on his promotion of the governments fantastic ability to keep "unemployment at record lows", "a very strong economy" and "inflation at an averaged 2.5% in contrast to labours 5.2%" – I am glad I only have to monitor Question Time for a few weeks as I feel financial debates and issues could get very boring!!
While I find Minchin to be very sarcastic in the way he answers the questions, I did find it interesting to hear how the minister answered questions and defended the governments actions in relations to climate change as I had to perform a similar task in a mock media conference. Once again he started off by deflecting the accusations that the government had done nothing to stop climate change in 11 years by insulting and criticising the "authoritarian labour machine" who disallow members to have their own views "for fear of being crushed… or expelled". While I feel this ongoing slandering to be pointless and irritating, he did pump through the key messages to promote the good the government is doing in relation to climate change, such as the "3.4 billion dollar program", the fact they are "committed to a carbon issues trading scheme" and as we highlighted in our mock media conference, the necessity to not rush into implementing such a scheme in order to ensure the safety of the economy. The promotion of these key messages was similar to our tactics and hence it was very beneficial and interesting to see how our media conference compared to the real thing.
As I said above in relation to Minchin’s answers, and whilst I know it is their job to defend their actions and campaigns, listening to the ongoing spiels from ministers about their campaigns does really highlight how talented the ministers are in pumping out their key messages throughout their answers. Every answer displayed the great skill the politicians have in conveying powerful, succinct key messages with ongoing references to the liberal’s governments great ability to keep interest rates down, consistent strong surpluses and paying off labour’s debt.
What also became apparent to me during this time, is the fact that the ministers do certainly seem to have a lot of fun during this time, giving each other cheek and taking up any chance to patronise the opposition. I found it very entertaining when Minchin directed his snide comments at Senator Ray and Senator Chapman who were repeatedly called to order when he came up to answer a question, saying "President you think they would have more respect seeing this is your last question time as president. Certainly we respect that fact and I would ask those opposite to respect that historic fact" – they certainly seem to enjoy the ability to make snide comments.
While I dislike opposing parties criticising each other during this time, the questions asked of members within the same party seem to add to the pointlessness of the procedures. The question posed by the Hon. Senator Patterson to fellow liberal member the Hon. Senator Coonan about the Governments actions to ensure the internet is safe for families seemed like a waste of time where Coonan was able to set off on her promotion of the new net alert program – important for the public to know this is going on, but seemingly pointless when other issues could have been discussed.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
Too Much Bickering!!
Question Time… 8th August 2007 - As this was the second time I had heard Question time, I was a bit more aware of the process and found it interesting to explore the issues brought up in parliament, especially as it came a day after my last hearing, however once again I found the process quite frustrating and pointless.
The inability for people to rebut the claims made by fellow ministers again highlighted the ineffectiveness of the parliamentary question time process and added to the frustration I felt the day before. When Finance Minister, Minchin was asked by Senator Evans to explain the liberal government’s previous campaign that promised "interest rates at record lows", of course he felt the Howard government had been very effective in building and maintaining "a very strong domestic economy" as he says "The remarkable thing about that, is that even with this rate rise, mortgage interest rates still under this government are lower than they ever were, ever were at any time under the last labour government". At this the opposition began to get very noisy, yelling out things like "you continue to blame everyone else but yourselves", yet they are called to order and couldn’t talk. This action of the Chair ensuring others don’t speak, seems to defeat the purpose of the question time. Surely chances for ministers to interject questions or comments would increase the instance of straight forward answers as opposed to long winded, key message loaded "answers".
Overall I again found question time a little quite painful to listen to. Not because it contained words like "dividend", "inflation" and "surplus", but it was the use of sarcasm and derogatory comments that made up most of the hour that created an annoyingly bitchy atmosphere. The Hon. Senator Abetz started off with so much sarcasm in his response to Barnett’s question saying "Thanks Mr President, can I thank Senator Barnett for his question and commend him for his strong ongoing interest in cleaning up Australia’s building and construction sectors", which I know is an important tactic in shutting down the opposition and mocking their interest, however it becomes so repetitive and annoying.
A lot of other bullying tactics were evident this question time, with people in the background pressuring Minister Barnett when he stood up for a supplementary question yelling out "what’s your question, what’s your question, what’s your question?" to confuse and fluster the minister.
I also came away thinking – thank goodness I am not at the receiving end of any of these questions and accusations!!
This experience has definitely highlighted the fact that yes, I do have an interest in the issues that are discussed and the processes of the Australian government, however I definitely have little desire to be involved in such controversial matters or at the receiving end of the questions and criticism that is fired at different ministers.
The inability for people to rebut the claims made by fellow ministers again highlighted the ineffectiveness of the parliamentary question time process and added to the frustration I felt the day before. When Finance Minister, Minchin was asked by Senator Evans to explain the liberal government’s previous campaign that promised "interest rates at record lows", of course he felt the Howard government had been very effective in building and maintaining "a very strong domestic economy" as he says "The remarkable thing about that, is that even with this rate rise, mortgage interest rates still under this government are lower than they ever were, ever were at any time under the last labour government". At this the opposition began to get very noisy, yelling out things like "you continue to blame everyone else but yourselves", yet they are called to order and couldn’t talk. This action of the Chair ensuring others don’t speak, seems to defeat the purpose of the question time. Surely chances for ministers to interject questions or comments would increase the instance of straight forward answers as opposed to long winded, key message loaded "answers".
Overall I again found question time a little quite painful to listen to. Not because it contained words like "dividend", "inflation" and "surplus", but it was the use of sarcasm and derogatory comments that made up most of the hour that created an annoyingly bitchy atmosphere. The Hon. Senator Abetz started off with so much sarcasm in his response to Barnett’s question saying "Thanks Mr President, can I thank Senator Barnett for his question and commend him for his strong ongoing interest in cleaning up Australia’s building and construction sectors", which I know is an important tactic in shutting down the opposition and mocking their interest, however it becomes so repetitive and annoying.
A lot of other bullying tactics were evident this question time, with people in the background pressuring Minister Barnett when he stood up for a supplementary question yelling out "what’s your question, what’s your question, what’s your question?" to confuse and fluster the minister.
I also came away thinking – thank goodness I am not at the receiving end of any of these questions and accusations!!
This experience has definitely highlighted the fact that yes, I do have an interest in the issues that are discussed and the processes of the Australian government, however I definitely have little desire to be involved in such controversial matters or at the receiving end of the questions and criticism that is fired at different ministers.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
“Questioning the Process”
So i have finally worked out how to access this blog since creating it over a month ago and although i feel totally uncomfortable about posting my ideas and opinions on the web - especially in relation to political matters, i am finally about to make my first post that will look at Question time and committee hearings, my findings, observations and feelings.
A newbie to this wonderful world of blogging and social media, having to work out podcasts was a time consuming and confusing experience, yet I am grateful for the practice – they really are so handy.
So anyway, onto my ideas about Question Time.
While i have flicked past this program or seen snippets on the night time news in the past, i have never really sat down to understand the issues raised and the actual procedures in the past. So as this was the first time I had really sat down to listen to what actually goes on, this will be a bit of an overall view of my response to the process and how question time is run.
My first experience with question time was when I listened to the Senate question time on the 7th August via podcast.
As a first time listener there were many things that surprised me. Firstly, the amount of fighting that goes on is hysterical. I couldn’t believe how disruptive all the politicians were, yelling out and causing the Chair to continually tell them to be quiet. After a while however, I felt the repetitive digs at each other from both parties made the process quite monotonous.
Secondly, I couldn’t believe how quickly issues were addressed, then finished with. It felt like things were never properly finalised or resolved, merely being brushed over or completely ignored to enable promotion of the speakers own agenda. While a time limit is certainly a necessary rule for question time to allow different issues to be heard, the fact that the chair had to cut Senator Minchin off mid sentence and then change to a completely different topic seemed a little pointless.
The inability for people to speak during the designated speakers time again seemed to me to make it a very ineffective process. While questions are directed at ministers to get answers, or to criticise their actions, scripted replies merely enable the ministers or representatives to give a quick spiel about how great their department, or overall government is at what they are doing, complete with facts and key messages without paying attention to what was asked.
I came away feeling that, although I feel question time is a necessary feature of the government to be seen to be ensuring their ministers are accountable for their actions, the whole process was quite pointless. The spiel by Coonan the minister for communications, information technology and the arts when she was asked to defend the Howard government’s actions in relation to the CDMA network seemed totally scripted and almost like an advertisement in the way she spelt out the actual phone number in full for the "next G customer support unit", and promoted her key messages that "the Howard government makes no apologies for putting the consumers first… The Howard government understands that good mobile coverage is not an optional extra, it is a vitally important service for people in regional and rural Australia." While I feel it is important the minister explains what the government is doing in relation to regional networks, I feel the ongoing references to how good the government is doing is a bit of an over kill.
The debate about pensioners not receiving an increase in payment in direct contrast to the rise politicians received was an interesting issue that arose, and an area I hadn’t really thought about before. It was interesting to see the views from both sides – the fact that pensioners and many in society feeling that politicians receive too much in relation to what they are entitled to and the rebuttal that it is a big job being the prime minister, and therefore they believe he is entitled to a good salary. (Although once again, the speakers argument was very meaty and powerful as they are the only ones allowed to express their opinion when they are given the floor.)
The issues discussed were very broad, with others including the Mersey Hospital Takeover, the government’s debt for health and aged care, treatment of Dr Mohammed Haneef and the governments lack of alcohol campaigns.
Overall an interesting experience but slightly frustrating.
A newbie to this wonderful world of blogging and social media, having to work out podcasts was a time consuming and confusing experience, yet I am grateful for the practice – they really are so handy.
So anyway, onto my ideas about Question Time.
While i have flicked past this program or seen snippets on the night time news in the past, i have never really sat down to understand the issues raised and the actual procedures in the past. So as this was the first time I had really sat down to listen to what actually goes on, this will be a bit of an overall view of my response to the process and how question time is run.
My first experience with question time was when I listened to the Senate question time on the 7th August via podcast.
As a first time listener there were many things that surprised me. Firstly, the amount of fighting that goes on is hysterical. I couldn’t believe how disruptive all the politicians were, yelling out and causing the Chair to continually tell them to be quiet. After a while however, I felt the repetitive digs at each other from both parties made the process quite monotonous.
Secondly, I couldn’t believe how quickly issues were addressed, then finished with. It felt like things were never properly finalised or resolved, merely being brushed over or completely ignored to enable promotion of the speakers own agenda. While a time limit is certainly a necessary rule for question time to allow different issues to be heard, the fact that the chair had to cut Senator Minchin off mid sentence and then change to a completely different topic seemed a little pointless.
The inability for people to speak during the designated speakers time again seemed to me to make it a very ineffective process. While questions are directed at ministers to get answers, or to criticise their actions, scripted replies merely enable the ministers or representatives to give a quick spiel about how great their department, or overall government is at what they are doing, complete with facts and key messages without paying attention to what was asked.
I came away feeling that, although I feel question time is a necessary feature of the government to be seen to be ensuring their ministers are accountable for their actions, the whole process was quite pointless. The spiel by Coonan the minister for communications, information technology and the arts when she was asked to defend the Howard government’s actions in relation to the CDMA network seemed totally scripted and almost like an advertisement in the way she spelt out the actual phone number in full for the "next G customer support unit", and promoted her key messages that "the Howard government makes no apologies for putting the consumers first… The Howard government understands that good mobile coverage is not an optional extra, it is a vitally important service for people in regional and rural Australia." While I feel it is important the minister explains what the government is doing in relation to regional networks, I feel the ongoing references to how good the government is doing is a bit of an over kill.
The debate about pensioners not receiving an increase in payment in direct contrast to the rise politicians received was an interesting issue that arose, and an area I hadn’t really thought about before. It was interesting to see the views from both sides – the fact that pensioners and many in society feeling that politicians receive too much in relation to what they are entitled to and the rebuttal that it is a big job being the prime minister, and therefore they believe he is entitled to a good salary. (Although once again, the speakers argument was very meaty and powerful as they are the only ones allowed to express their opinion when they are given the floor.)
The issues discussed were very broad, with others including the Mersey Hospital Takeover, the government’s debt for health and aged care, treatment of Dr Mohammed Haneef and the governments lack of alcohol campaigns.
Overall an interesting experience but slightly frustrating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)