6.1
As the most visible time of the day, Question Time influences the way many people judge the House. Improving the tone and tenor of Question Time may help not only to improve how it is viewed and engage members of the public who are currently disillusioned by what they observe but to build trust in the institution of the House more generally.
6.2
Professor Evans spoke of research conducted by Democracy 2025 which showed Australians dislike the ‘conflict-driven, adversarial politics’ on display during Question Time, saying, ‘If you adopt a public-value perspective it only marginally delivers on its democratic purpose; it provides limited quality assurance of the work of government but it does fuel public distrust.’
6.3
Mr Bruzgulis wrote that ‘the substance of question time should reassure Australians that the government is working for their good. It should not be a de facto, ongoing, perpetual election campaign.’
6.4
Due to their office, parliamentarians are seen as role models, including to school children, workers and workplaces, and Australians in general. However, these expectations are not always being met. Mr Vanderlaan wrote:
Regardless of political alignment, the Houses are there to represent the people. We hold diverse views, but respect each other’s right to hold such views. Abuse, antipathy, and rudeness are not acceptable in public, and should not be acceptable in Parliament.
6.5
Mr Fraser also discussed politicians as role models:
We are hearing a lot in the media these days about the way public figures speak, the impact of their words and how that can drive the behaviour of others. Yet we have a major cultural shift that needs to happen when our political leaders gather to discuss important issues. Unfortunately, during Question Time the public will observe, politicians yelling out, speaking over the top of one another, group outbursts of cheers and jeers and constant reminders from the speaker to abide by the rules.
6.6
Feedback to the Museum of Australian Democracy indicated that, while teachers and students value seeing the Chambers, and students value seeing all the Members in the Chamber together, students have been shocked or surprised on occasion by the behaviour of Members in Question Time.
6.7
Mr Crowe noted declining levels of trust in Parliament, drawing a comparison with a decline in Question Time and its culture. He told the Committee, ‘If Question Time serves Australians better, perhaps they will trust their Parliament more.’
6.8
Similarly, Mr Vanderlaan wrote:
While Question Time … should be about accountability and relevance, the fact that it is the “public face” of Parliament offers an opportunity to enhance its reputation, and to instil confidence within the electorate not just about the present, but the future as well.
6.9
The Committee’s recommendations specifying the number and type of questions that constitute Question Time (Recommendation 3), reducing the time limits for questions and answers (Recommendations 5 and 6), changing how questions are asked and answered (Recommendations 1 and 4) and strengthening the Speaker’s powers to manage disorderly conduct (Recommendation 8) would all assist in improving the conduct of Question Time and therefore how the House and its Members are represented by it, now and in the future.
6.10
Through the inquiry, the Committee also discussed other ways to improve how Question Time is conducted. The use of electronic devices during Question Time, the time of day Question Time is held and the consideration of other business during the time set aside for Question Time are all discussed below.
Use of mobile phones during Question Time
6.11
Use of mobile phones in the House is governed by a resolution adopted on 26 March 2015. The use of mobile phones and other electronic devices is permitted in the House, Federation Chamber and committees, provided that the use of any device avoids interference or distraction to other Members, either visually or audibly, and does not interfere with proceedings. Phone calls are not permitted, and devices are to be operated in silent mode. The use of devices must be as unobtrusive as possible and directly related to the Members’ parliamentary duties.
6.12
During hearings, the Committee explored perceptions around the use of mobile phones in the Chamber. Ms Kernot observed that mobile phone use indicated to her: ‘Look how bored we all are. Look how unimportant this is to all of us.’ Sammy Kielbasa, a student from Catholic College Wodonga, said in a public hearing:
… seeing politicians on their phones, being distracted and not paying active attention to their colleagues, those in the same party as them, sets almost a bad example to us. Why should we be watching when their colleagues in the same room aren’t even paying attention?
6.13
The same sentiment was expressed by Ms Thwaites and Ms P. Murphy, who wrote, ‘When Members of parliament can’t even be bothered to pay attention … how can we expect the public to respect what they do,’ and reflected that since Members seemed unable to self-police their ‘addiction’ then the use of phones should be banned during Question Time.
6.14
Mr Jenkins observed that electronic devices were part of a modern workplace, noting that it was during his tenure as Speaker that screens were installed in front of the Speaker in the chair, allowing him to receive advice electronically. However, he acknowledged that ‘it can be an absolutely bad, bad look’ when Members are absorbed in reading their screens. Echoing Mr Jenkins’s observation about the use of electronic devices in a modern workplace, Mr Crowe cautioned that ‘the mobile phone is with us’ and that ‘those who are in the Chamber need to be up to speed with what’s happening outside the Chamber, and the phone helps do that’.
6.15
Ms Burke also thought that mobile phones and laptops should not be allowed in the Chamber as, for that one point during the day, it should be what Members are concentrating on, and she did not think it would ‘take away the ability to do work from everybody’. She also spoke of receiving complaints when in Parliament about Members using their devices for non‑work purposes, such as online shopping.
6.16
The public survey did not ask specifically about mobile phone use. Thirty respondents mentioned the use of mobile phones in comments, observing that it did not portray Members as engaged and/or calling for it to be banned.
6.17
The Members survey asked: ‘Should there be restrictions on mobile devices during Question Time?’ Four Members said yes, while 12 said no. Comments in support of restrictions referred to the lack of engagement shown by Members using devices. Members who did not support restrictions commented that their devices were a way of remaining in contact with their office during Question Time and also of conducting other parliamentary work while in the Chamber.
Comment
6.18
The Committee considers that limiting mobile phone use by Members has the potential to improve Members’ engagement and the perception of Question Time. However, phones and other devices are used by Members to communicate time-critical information—for example, ministers may be sent additional information from advisers to assist them to respond to a question in more detail. A trial in which the use of mobile phones by Members in the Chamber was severely limited would identify whether limiting their use in the longer term would be workable. The limits would apply only to Members, and advisers would still be able to receive information electronically.
6.19
The Committee recommends a short-term trial of very limited use of mobile phones by Members during Question Time. On completion of the trial, the House would decide whether to restrict their use during Question Time on an ongoing basis.
The timing of Question Time
6.20
Some survey respondents suggested holding Question Time at other times of the day. This was either with a view to increasing its accessibility by holding it at a time of day when more people might be able to watch or in the belief that holding it at another time—for example, in the morning—might encourage better behaviour.
6.21
Dr Serban noted that most of the parliaments that she had looked at held their Question Time in the afternoon. Practice in Australian states and territories varies. Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory all hold their Question Time in the afternoon, while Queensland and Tasmania hold theirs in the morning. In Victoria, the time for Question Time varies between morning and afternoon depending on the day of the week.
6.22
Ms Kernot suggested that holding Question Time at 10.30 am would still allow enough preparation time, while avoiding it being held immediately after lunch. Ms Burke thought:
… having it earlier in the day would be more conducive than at 2 pm in the afternoon as well. I think that, by the end of a long sitting week … tempers become frayed and individuals become tired.
6.23
When asked her views on Ms Burke’s comments, Professor Lewis observed that they could mean businesses and government departments also had to hold their meetings in the mornings. Ultimately, she was not sure that changing the time for Question Time ‘would help in any way’. Ms K. Murphy noted that holding it too early in the morning might disadvantage people in the centre or west of Australia, who were in different time zones.
Comment
6.24
On balance, the Committee does not consider it necessary to change the time at which Question Time is scheduled to begin.
Other business at 2 pm
6.25
Some submissions and survey responses suggested not considering condolence motions and/or statements on indulgence during the period scheduled for Question Time. Some reason that Question Time should be for questions only, while Ms Jones considered it disrespectful to eulogise and then launch into partisan attacks ‘when very often family and/or loved ones of the deceased person are present in the public gallery’. Several comments also referred to ensuring that condolence motions did not count towards the time allocated for Question Time.
Current practice
6.26
It is the practice of the House to record the death of a former Member or Senator. Either a condolence motion is moved, or the Speaker makes a brief mention of the death of the former Member and then invites Members to rise in their places as a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased. When a sitting Member dies, their death is usually announced to the House at the earliest opportunity. Condolence motions are also moved on the death of a Governor-General. From time to time condolence motions may also be moved following the deaths of distinguished Australians, Heads of State or government of other countries and other distinguished persons overseas whose achievements are considered to have relevance to Australia. Condolence motions have also been moved for service personnel and victims of natural and other disasters.
6.27
Standing order 49 states that:
As a courtesy, the House will ordinarily grant precedence to a motion moved without notice for a motion of condolence or thanks of the House.
6.28
There is no time set in the order of business for condolence motions. However, the practice of the House is that condolence motions or references to the deaths of certain persons are normally dealt with immediately following Prayers or at 2 pm. By their nature, statements by indulgence are at the discretion of the Speaker.
Comment
6.29
Condolence motions provide an important opportunity for the House to formally place on record details such as appreciation of the service of the deceased and an expression of sympathy to their family. Statements by the Speaker announcing the death of former Members are in line with long‑standing practice.
6.30
The Committee notes that concerns that condolence motions and/or statements by indulgence made at 2 pm reduce the time available for Question Time would be addressed if Recommendation 3 in this report were adopted. A minimum number of questions would be asked no matter when Question Time began.
6.31
However, the Committee also notes public expectation of being able to watch or listen to the broadcast of Question Time at 2 pm. The Committee recognises that there may be practical or public interest reasons to raise matters on indulgence or move condolence motions at 2 pm but suggests that, where appropriate, consideration be given to this being done at the start of the sitting day instead. This may also avoid a potential shift in tone from the reflective to the political once Question Time begins.
6.32
The Committee considers that the practice of outlining ministerial arrangements—for example, noting which minister will respond to questions in another’s absence—at the beginning of Question Time is not only appropriate but helpful and should continue.
6.33
The Committee recommends that consideration be given to making statements on indulgence or moving motions of condolence after Prayers.