“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.