Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Melbourne for bringing on this suspension of standing orders so that we can address this question. I think it has been a problem for some time. What is the value to taxpayers of question time? That is what this question really goes to. The origin of question time is that it was established to ensure that there was an opportunity to ask questions of the government of the day for, ultimately, the benefit of the Australian people. There was a time when, in fact, government also used question time to actually make announcements, policy announcements, that really would benefit, again, the Australian people. Unfortunately, we've moved to a question time now being this sort of parody process. It's a farce, ultimately, where we don't really get responses to questions. There might be peripheral addressing of the topic or a word. Section 104 of the standing orders sets out on replies to questions that an answer must be directly relevant to the question. Unfortunately, 'direct relevance' has been interpreted that, as long as a minister's answer responds in a peripheral way to any word that might have been used in the question or in any preamble, that can still constitute a directly relevant answer.

I'd have to say that is not what the Australian people expect. I think it is not the kind of standard and answer that the Australian people would like to hear. I appreciate that sometimes the questions are hard to answer, and there shouldn't be a problem with a minister actually identifying that and saying, 'I will take that question on notice and I will come back with an answer on that.' It's not just this idea of gotcha moments in question time. If it's not possible to answer the question genuinely, honestly and directly then there is the opportunity to take it on notice and come back at a later date. Instead, what we get is three minutes of diversion and talking about everything and anything but the actual question.

So I think this amendment makes a great start in trying to amend the standing orders so that we actually require a direct answer to the substantive question, not just broad relevance. So I welcome this opportunity. I hope the government will take this on and consider this because whilst in opposition they found incredibly frustrating the lack of direct answers by ministers. So now, in government, there is that opportunity for them to set a new standard, to improve the quality of the debate in this place, to give taxpayers value for question time and to give the children and other people in the public gallery that come and watch question time an opportunity to see real accountability and real debate occur.

Coming from the legal profession as a barrister, where debating and asking questions is incredibly important in court proceedings, I have found the process of question time quite disconcerting and in particular the fact that the answers are often so far from the mark but also the repetitive nature of the gotcha questions that often come from the opposition. It's really looking at question time as a performative opportunity to be adversarial, to perform for the cameras, as opposed to genuinely giving something of value to the Australian people.

I would urge all the members in this place, but in particular the government and the Leader of the House, who's here to hear this debate, to think carefully about where we can we take question time. How can we improve and progress this system and actually give some benefit and value to the Australian people?

See this speech in context