While Parliament House in Canberra is home to a steady stream of tourism and dignitaries, the actions of what goes on in Question time garners annoyance from the wider Australian public.
What ticks off Australians when it comes to question time, and why has this caused a
disconnect between politics and the people?
Despite the need for procession and order in the parliament, such acts are the butt of why political activity is seen as mundane.
An often heard phrase that comes along when watching this whether it be live or on the television, is the role of the Speaker and how he (and perhaps, She) is plagued by the preschool tactics of petty politicians taking tit for tat on either side of the party line.
The speaker, while a member of parliament is chosen by the government in order to uphold the proceedings and rules of the lower or upper house (there are separate persons to do this).
While they yell and eject at the members of parliament thrust into heated debate, their role is otherwise minimal in terms of policy building. Such limitations are believed to have been a fundamental reason to former speaker Harry Jenkins (Member for Scully) standing down from the position.
The new speaker, Peter Slipper has, in the first days of Question time for the year, has made use of his new “voice” whether it be in widening debate of what the speaker wears (or doesn’t) as well as causing a spate of ejections from parliament.
It has be considered, if the role of the speaker is to uphold procedure as opposed to building policy unless needs be, then what is the politicians motive in taking that role?
No comments:
Post a Comment