Question Time is a unique and very visible part of the parliamentary day. It is fundamental to the process of holding the executive government of the day to account, while its spot-lit nature means it is also often a time for political opportunism. Outside this period, much of the rest of the House’s work is done very differently while bills are debated, constituent matters are raised and issues are considered by committees. Yet Question Time is the part of the day on which many judge the House and its work.
The Committee was keen to hear directly from the public as part of this inquiry. Thousands of people took the time to make a submission, respond to our survey or write to us. We had hoped to meet with more members of the public face to face; however, the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic unfortunately limited this form of engagement. We also heard from current and former Members, state and territory Speakers, academics and others with a keen interest in parliamentary procedure. I would like to convey my personal thanks to all those who contributed.
While opinions differed on how Question Time could be improved, the need for improvement was conveyed clearly from every quarter. In particular, enhanced accountability, better questions and answers and a higher standard of behaviour were sought. Not all the suggestions raised could be considered, but the Committee explored many in its public hearings and has reflected them in this report.
Question Time is a long-standing tradition that remains a valuable forum for scrutiny of the executive, and we have therefore chosen to make recommendations to reform existing practices and procedures rather than take the carte blanche approach suggested by some contributors. During the inquiry, we considered not only current standing orders and practice but also Question Time’s role and functions, behaviour during Question Time and public expectations and perceptions. I hope our recommendations set a new standard for Question Time as a purposeful and relevant forum.
The Committee has developed a package of recommendations that we consider would together improve accountability, encourage better questions and more relevant answers and make it more straightforward for the Speaker to manage Question Time. Adopting the recommendations would result in a Question Time consisting of at least 21 questions each day, with shorter questions and answers encouraging greater relevance. Curbing the use of tag questions about alternative approaches and setting a minimum number of constituency questions from government Members would see a move towards more genuine questions focused on government policies and actions and would limit opportunities for ‘Dorothy Dix’ style questions. Providing the Speaker with an additional option to manage disorderly behaviour and trialling a mobile phone ban would lift standards of behaviour and could, along with highlighting other work of the House, improve how not only Question Time but the House more generally is viewed.
I would like to thank my fellow committee members for the constructive and collaborative approach they have taken to developing these recommendations. I would also like to thank the secretariat for the support they have provided to the Committee.
While the standing orders set out the formal rules governing Question Time, practice and culture also play a role in the dynamic of this period of the parliamentary day. How Question Time is used is ultimately a matter for Members and parties, and it will always remain up to participants to decide how they make use of the opportunities within the standing orders.
I hope the House will use this report as a blueprint for change. A reformed Question Time would not only offer greater opportunities for scrutiny and show parliamentarians as better role models but would more accurately reflect the way much of the other business of the House is carried out. In other words, as a window on the House, it would offer a much better view.
Ross Vasta MP
Chair