Oh FFS.
Muz4PM said:
A prepared statement = ministerial statement, not a question without notice. A Dorothy and an associated typed answer do not prove that a minister can do their job; it simply proves that they passed primary school and can read. A minister that does their job can quite as easily get up without a statement and relay to the house what they had done and what benefits it has etc.
You originally said that you had no problem with a minister having some brief notes to guide them through an answer. What difference does it make if they have extensive notes, or brief notes? What is the difference beyond the length of notes themselves? Yeah, in an ideal world ministers would know everything about their departments and would be able to answer any given question
properly without reading a thing. However we all know that's not the case. So what is the practical difference of reading from a statement or waffling on ala Costello and not really answering a thing? I'll tell you the difference. The difference is that we get much more accurate and reliable information from ministers if they're reading from a prepared statement than we would if they were waffling on from memory.
The point of Question time is to ask questions of the government, get an answer, and to ensure that the government knows what its doing (and that they're doing it properly). Thoroughly researching an answer and delivering it by speaking from a prepared statement fulfils all of those goals far better than what you're suggesting ever could.
And by the way, that notion that a minister could get up and answer any question properly without a statement is, as I said, a little dumb. At best, you'll find a mediocre response which is always below that of a prepared answer.
I find it interesting that you choose to level criticism at ‘Howard and co’ for their ‘lousy answering techniques.’ What were their lousy answering techniques? You talk about all the ‘crap’ Costello went on about in question time. I can only assume that you are in reference to times when he would slag off about the economy under Labor, Swan’s deficiencies, preselection and associated internal party problems in the ALP. If that is the case, and if I am incorrect, please correct me, can you outline where the ALP has not done the same thing?
Well eh, thing is I never said that the ALP doesn't do the same thing. :rofl:
But yeah, you've got a point, the ALP does engage in those tactics every now and then, but only in a few cases relating to Wayne Swan (which were absent today, thankfully) have they ever got in the way of answering a question. I mean, let's do a comparison. Remember the Latham Diaries and how the government seized the opportunity and let every answer drift into some crap about that? Plenty of lulz to be had there. Remember last night's Four Corners program? Hmmm, barely any mention today.
You say that you don’t see how anyone could regard this as a problem. Indeed, ministers reading off prepared statements and such in question time can be a minor issue. However, if a minister, particularly a senior member of cabinet cannot perform their job without a prepared statement, then maybe they are not be the best person for the job.
:rofl: ludicrous.
And I might add, as it amuses me so much, that public opinion says otherwise. Even with prepared statements from ol Kevvy (apparently), he still maintains a 61% lead over Brendan Nelson. On a 2PP basis, Labor enjoys a 14% lead. Clearly the majority believe that they are the best people for the job, even if they do the dastardly deed of reading from prepared statements. :rofl:
