Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report, entitled A window on the House: practices and procedures relating to question time, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—Before I begin my statement, may I thank my colleagues on the committee. To the deputy chair, the member for Oxley: we have known each other for over 20 years and it was a pleasure to work with you on the report. All committee members worked together extremely well, and this cooperative behaviour showcases the excellent but little publicised workings of parliament. I'd also like to thank my committee members—Ian Goodenough, Julian Simmonds, Joanne Ryan, Patrick Gorman and Gladys Liu—and of course our outstanding secretariat—Natalie, Kate and Penny—and all of those who worked behind the scenes on the report. Thank you so much.

Question time plays an important, critical review function in the House. In 2019 the Procedure Committee decided to inquire into the practices and procedures relating to this unique and very visible part of the parliamentary day. We were keen to hear directly from the public as part of our inquiry. As well as inviting submissions, we launched a survey to ask people their thoughts. Almost 3½ thousand people responded to the public survey and we received more than 50 submissions. We also had a survey for members.

I would like to thank everyone who made a submission or responded to the surveys. I would like to thank our current Speaker for his invaluable input. I would also like to thank state and territory speakers, current members of this House, former speakers, academics, parliamentary practitioners and school students who took the time to meet with us, make submissions or appear at hearings. We had hoped to meet with more members of the public face to face but, unfortunately, COVID-19 meant we weren't able to do that last year. Nonetheless, the message from the public survey was clear. More than 95 per cent of respondents thought the House should change how question time operates.

In the surveys, submissions and hearings we heard many suggestions for change. While we couldn't consider them all, we explored a lot of them and we tried to address as many of them as possible in our report. Improving question time as a forum for accountability and scrutiny, having better questions and answers and lifting the standard of behaviour were key themes.

We have developed a package of 11 recommendations that we consider would address these. We recommend a question time consisting of a minimum of 21 questions each day, with at least 10 questions from opposition members, five questions from government members on a rostered basis, five constituency questions from government members on a rostered basis and one question from a non-aligned member, and there could be one supplementary question from an opposition member each day. We also recommend new time limits of 30 seconds for questions and two minutes for answers, with no point of order on relevance allowed in the first 30 seconds of an answer. We propose curbing the use of tag questions about alternative approaches and also suggest that the Prime Minister should speak to any questions posed to him or her first, even if they then choose to refer it to another minister for a more detailed response. I note that the Prime Minister seems to have addressed this issue, judging by his current approach. This package of changes would encourage questions to be more focused and answers to be tighter and more relevant. We would also limit opportunities for Dorothy-Dix-style questions while still allowing all members to ask questions.

The inquiry also heard concerns about the tone and tenor of question time. At the moment there are two options for managing disorderly behaviour: a one-hour suspension under standing order 94(a); or, more serious, naming, which can result in suspension for a minimum of 24 hours. We recommend an additional option so that the Speaker can direct a member who is disorderly to leave the House for a three-hour period. This would be served during question time and discussion of matters of public importance, and carry across sitting days if necessary.

We also recommend a trial of very limited mobile phone use by members. We know people are concerned when they see members who are on their phones and don't seem to be paying attention to question time. But we also heard that phones are sometimes being used to communicate very relevant information. So we have proposed a trial to see whether limiting phone use would be workable in the longer term.

We are very conscious that question time is the window through which the House is often viewed and judged. But it is not always representative of the serious and thoughtful way that members carry out much of their other work. We recommend more promotion to highlight the other work of the House. The House may also wish to consider making more use of the time immediately after prayers for condolence motions and matters on indulgence.

Ultimately, responsibility for the operation of question time rests with the House itself. I hope it will use this report as a blueprint for change. I commend the report to the House.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to make a short statement and to thank the member for Bonner, the chair of the Procedures Committee, for his thoughtful and very worthwhile contribution to today's debate. I thank him and members of the committee for their leadership in delivering a blueprint—a bipartisan blueprint—for change to question time.

Question time is a visible opportunity to hold the government of the day to account and, due to its public nature, it can also be a moment for political opportunism. It's dynamic and a unique part of our democratic process, and is the most public part of the parliamentary day. But for most Australians, question time is the only work of ours they see. It's how the majority of people reach a judgement about this House and its work—and it's not a pretty look.

For this reason, the committee wanted to begin this report by gauging the variety of attitudes towards question time. As we've heard, submissions were called for in 2019, and I want to read one submission—submission 16—to the chamber:

When watching Question Time on television I see many highly paid people behaving extremely badly. Instead of thoughtfully and respectfully debating policies, MPs use Question Time as a political fight club: shouting at each other, being aggressive, bullying, name calling, mocking others, sledging and generally being abusive.

…   …   …

Instead of asking intelligent and probing questions on behalf of their constituents, the whole exercise has been dumbed down and 'weaponised' in order to score points. To 'answer' a question from the Opposition, the respondent stands up and yells something nasty for three minutes.

This is not a one-off opinion. Discontent with the process was a common thread in submissions.

The survey received 3,465 responses and we were shocked to find that more than 95 per cent of people surveyed indicated they thought the House should change the way question time works. Many feel that the process is not currently achieving its purpose, calling it a 'waste of time', 'just theatre' or a 'farce'. Concerningly, a strong theme that emerged in these responses was the perceived failure to answer questions. People also highlighted the need for ministers to answer questions truthfully and to keep their answers relevant to the questions.

These are troubling and widespread attitudes, which spurred the committee to develop a list of bipartisan recommendations and guidelines that seek to improve the conduct of question time overall and, importantly, to restore public faith in our political process. We all understand that question time means different things to different people, but the committee found that the prevailing theme across submissions and comments were that the purpose of question time is to hold the government to account for its policies and actions. Many people don't believe that accountability is being achieved under the current structure.

Accountability starts at the top, which is why I want to share with the House one particular recommendation that the committee is putting forward in this report. In recommendation 4, the committee recommends:

The Committee recommends that the standing orders be amended so that the Prime Minister cannot refer a question to another minister to answer without first speaking to the matter of the question themselves.

Media reports have shown that this Prime Minister has avoided giving an answer at question time approaching 200 times since taking office. The Hansard also shows over 62 times when he has given a part answer before deferring to someone else. It's these recommendations and other recommendations, such as banning the dreaded dorothy dixers and ensuring that there is a trial for mobile phones in this chamber, which will lead to more accountability and a better question time. In order for Australians to have faith in our democratic process they must be entitled to answers from their leaders, especially from the Prime Minister, who has shown consistent disregard for the transparent and informative process that the Australian public is calling for.

The road to a better question time starts at the top, but it doesn't end there. This report details 11 key recommendations that I hope will lead the House to set a new standard for question time as a purposeful and relevant forum, one that benefits and is respected by the Australian people.