CONSIGN ‘DIXERS’ TO THE PAST
STATE Parliament returned for its tenth sitting day of the year on Tuesday, although one important feature was absent: Question Time. The government’s decision to prorogue parliament meant the early part of the session was procedural before the rush to debate forestry laws.
It appeared that the decision to prorogue the parliament and suspend sittings was based on the government’s weak grip on majority. With Peter Gutwein absent and the elevation of a new member on a recount pending, the Liberals would have been vulnerable to losing votes on the floor of the House of Assembly, despite the fact that the Labor party offered a “pair” to maintain the balance.
The result was a loss of opportunity for Tasmania’s elected officials to do an important part of their jobs. That continued on Tuesday. As Labor leader Rebecca White pointed out, without Question Time, there was no chance for the Premier to outline his agenda for the state, for members to reflect on the opening of the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, to debate measures to address the rising cost of living, the rising cost of housing, worsening access to healthcare. Instead, the day was consumed by debate on a Bill to fix a technical problem with forestry legislation fought along longstanding ideological lines.
For those enamoured of the role of Parliament in scrutinising the actions of executive government, there was at least a brief glimmer of hope.
A Greens attempt to clamp down on “Dorothy Dixers” came within a single vote of succeeding.
Dixers are the questions the government asks itself during Question Time. Each sitting day in the bare hour opposition members are allocated to ask questions of ministers, around a third of that time is taken up by backbenchers giving free kicks to their own side. What follows is inevitably a long and boring recitation of a minister’s performance or some kind of prepared policy announcement, sometimes leavened by an attack or unflattering reflection on something Labor did in the long-distant past.
The government correctly points out that its members should have the same right to ask a question as any other MP. But would it not be a nod to the oft-lauded concepts of transparency and openness to repurpose some of the more obsequious of these Dorothy Dixers into press releases or social media posts? The opportunities to hold the government to account in parliament are precious and rare bulwarks of our democratic process. Any reform which strengthens our democracy should be welcomed. Hopefully, this proposed change is an idea which might take root and flourish in future.