Looking back at my previous posts I seem to have been quite negative about the whole process, so today I decided to try and look at question time on the 18th September in a new light. This was quite unsuccessful however, as the first question brought the discussion straight back to another debate about interest and mortgage rates which I can’t say I was too thrilled to hear once again. And although I have come to have a better understanding of the issues due to my exciting new hobby of listening to question time via podcast, I can’t believe senators can sit through question time nearly every day and debate the same issues.
Today however, instead of just listening to the to and fro-ing of figures and the monotonous cry of... "liberals have kept interest rates lower than when labour was in government" I tried to cut through all the key messages and self promotion to really see how effective senators were at answering the questions posed to them. And as id thought, the first question and supplementary question provided no answers, merely the ramblings of Senator Scullion who tried unconvincingly to defend his contradictory statements made the day before that "interest rates today are the highest they’ve been under the Howard government" and in the same speech "that they are at record lows". And in response to the supplementary question about the broken promises of the liberal government about interest rates, (which is a favourite and almost permanent target for the labour party) he gave no defined answer, merely going off on a tangent about how proud he was "to be a member of a government that allowed people to be in a position to buy their own home".
Once again I came away frustrated with the whole process of question time as well as the ongoing competition between "us" and "them". Although I realise it is important for different groups to represent different view supposedly held by the people in Australia, I wish there could be some way they could lessen the huge competitive relationship they have between each other, because if makes question time very tedious and uncomfortable to listen to.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The Agriculture Sector Speaks Out
My first impressions of the committee hearing were that, whilst it seemed very proper and formal, with words such as being ”conversant with the terms of the inquiry” making the process seem very heavy, I was relieved that I didn’t have to endure the usually bickering I had to watch when I was analysing question time. As it was a committee hearing inquiring into the agriculture sector of New South Wales (29 August 2007), the issues discussed have been very topical as of late, hence aroused great debate on the important issues of sustainability and the environment. I also found the issues to be of great interest to myself due to the big hype that has emerged in relation to securing Australia’s environmental future, and found it was especially beneficial for me to gain such a deep understanding of the experiences farmers face and the issues relating to their work, especially at such a hard time.
Although I understand the nature of this hearing to be different with representatives expressing their views as opposed to senators being held accountable for their actions, I found the issues discussed to be very worthwhile and intelligent, enjoying the absence of the slandering match that goes on during question time, where one senator would accuse one and then would retaliate very condescendingly. In this case solutions were being presented in the hope that real problems could be fixed, and great planning and research had obviously gone into the presentation of the problems and solutions. Professor Michael Archer who spoke first, certainly opened up my eyes to the issues farmers have, in particular with kangaroos which I found to be very interesting, as I had never been exposed to these kind of issues farmer face before. He was so well researched and a great debater that I really enjoyed listening to him.
I especially liked Archer’s golfing analogy; where a golfer who takes many clubs to play golf to account for the challenges the face him, was paralleled to the need for Australia to have a number of strategies to combat the different problems that could arise in relation to the possible extinction of animals and communities.
The introduction of the Farmers Association members and the second discussion, again highlighted the importance of procedure in the chamber. The obvious necessity for the representatives to name their “capacity” individually, as “a member of the Rural Alliance” indicated the longstanding protocols of such hearings and alerted me to the fact that this background information was important for all involved, as opposed to the senate, where members and their positions would already have been known to everyone else in the chamber.
Once again it was interesting to hear different groups views on agriculture sustainability expressed, as like in Australian society, everyone seems to have an opinion on this topic. Another interesting discussion was the issue of meat exportation differences between the states. I learnt so much about the little things that make such a big impact on the overall farming community, and enjoyed listening to solutions proposed during this time.
Coming away from the hearing made me realise how complicated and stressful it would be to be in government. The hearing was only focusing on one sector of the community, where many representatives strongly believed they deserved funding for a number of reasons. Yet one look at the long list of committees on the parliamentary website, indicates the great competition there is for attention and funding of the different issues that affect the different sectors.
Overall I found the hearing to be a very interesting experience. To witness the avenues people in the community have to voice their opinions, debate the running of the country and promote government action in relation to certain issues was very beneficial. I pity the different governments for being faced with so many different groups all believing they deserve and need money for their own specific benefit and definitely do not envy the positions of those in government!
Although I understand the nature of this hearing to be different with representatives expressing their views as opposed to senators being held accountable for their actions, I found the issues discussed to be very worthwhile and intelligent, enjoying the absence of the slandering match that goes on during question time, where one senator would accuse one and then would retaliate very condescendingly. In this case solutions were being presented in the hope that real problems could be fixed, and great planning and research had obviously gone into the presentation of the problems and solutions. Professor Michael Archer who spoke first, certainly opened up my eyes to the issues farmers have, in particular with kangaroos which I found to be very interesting, as I had never been exposed to these kind of issues farmer face before. He was so well researched and a great debater that I really enjoyed listening to him.
I especially liked Archer’s golfing analogy; where a golfer who takes many clubs to play golf to account for the challenges the face him, was paralleled to the need for Australia to have a number of strategies to combat the different problems that could arise in relation to the possible extinction of animals and communities.
The introduction of the Farmers Association members and the second discussion, again highlighted the importance of procedure in the chamber. The obvious necessity for the representatives to name their “capacity” individually, as “a member of the Rural Alliance” indicated the longstanding protocols of such hearings and alerted me to the fact that this background information was important for all involved, as opposed to the senate, where members and their positions would already have been known to everyone else in the chamber.
Once again it was interesting to hear different groups views on agriculture sustainability expressed, as like in Australian society, everyone seems to have an opinion on this topic. Another interesting discussion was the issue of meat exportation differences between the states. I learnt so much about the little things that make such a big impact on the overall farming community, and enjoyed listening to solutions proposed during this time.
Coming away from the hearing made me realise how complicated and stressful it would be to be in government. The hearing was only focusing on one sector of the community, where many representatives strongly believed they deserved funding for a number of reasons. Yet one look at the long list of committees on the parliamentary website, indicates the great competition there is for attention and funding of the different issues that affect the different sectors.
Overall I found the hearing to be a very interesting experience. To witness the avenues people in the community have to voice their opinions, debate the running of the country and promote government action in relation to certain issues was very beneficial. I pity the different governments for being faced with so many different groups all believing they deserve and need money for their own specific benefit and definitely do not envy the positions of those in government!
Question Time - TV Antics
As my fellow classmates have found, internshipping and working while keeping up with uni work is very tough indeed - especially when subjects require students to attend a hearing or watch a program that is broadcast at 2pm in the afternoons. While the podcasts are a great way of hearing everything that goes on – with the added advantage of being able to access the files anywhere and at any time, watching the real thing is much more interesting and definitely much more entertaining. It wasn’t until I discovered that Question time airs at the lovely time of 12:35am that I was able to watch and listen to what goes on, on Tuesday 11 September.
As I have said in previous posts, while I find the issues discussed very heavy and boring, I have found the process of Question Time quite amusing. Watching the process and the shifting camera angles, cranky faces and rising noise and anger levels as senators become agitated dramatically increased the entertainment level. Watching the program live is also very disjointed and fast paced but I thoroughly enjoyed laughing at the bored looking faces of people sitting behind speakers, the women dressed in red walking past cameras to ensure everyone had enough water, and although i had heard the need for "order, order" to be interjected, watching the smart alec comments and anger are much funnier in the flesh.
Once more there were the very rehearsed answers, with statistics about how well the Australian government was doing in "diligently spending 10.4 billion dollars on security" and then there were the catty comments with senators sarcastically beginning their spiel by congratulating the questioner on asking a "very good question".
It was interesting once again to hear such a wide range of issues that keep popping up such as the troops in Iraq, changes in security since September 11, Climate Change, Kyoto in light of APEC the week before, the Equine influenza and issues relating to Fishing, in particular recreational fishing.
Watching the politicians body language and when they get revved up was much more exciting than staring into space while listening to political matters via my ipod!!
As I have said in previous posts, while I find the issues discussed very heavy and boring, I have found the process of Question Time quite amusing. Watching the process and the shifting camera angles, cranky faces and rising noise and anger levels as senators become agitated dramatically increased the entertainment level. Watching the program live is also very disjointed and fast paced but I thoroughly enjoyed laughing at the bored looking faces of people sitting behind speakers, the women dressed in red walking past cameras to ensure everyone had enough water, and although i had heard the need for "order, order" to be interjected, watching the smart alec comments and anger are much funnier in the flesh.
Once more there were the very rehearsed answers, with statistics about how well the Australian government was doing in "diligently spending 10.4 billion dollars on security" and then there were the catty comments with senators sarcastically beginning their spiel by congratulating the questioner on asking a "very good question".
It was interesting once again to hear such a wide range of issues that keep popping up such as the troops in Iraq, changes in security since September 11, Climate Change, Kyoto in light of APEC the week before, the Equine influenza and issues relating to Fishing, in particular recreational fishing.
Watching the politicians body language and when they get revved up was much more exciting than staring into space while listening to political matters via my ipod!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)