3.1
Three core elements form the dynamic of Question Time: it is a key part of holding the government of the day to account, it is the most visible part of the day and the rules and practices which govern how it is conducted are complex. This chapter outlines the evidence the Committee received in its inquiry and considers the three elements of Question Time’s dynamic in this context.
Evidence to the Committee
3.2
On 2 August 2019, the Committee advertised the inquiry via media release, in which it encouraged submissions from the public. Invitations to make a submission were also sent to specific individuals and organisations. In total the Committee received 51 submissions.
3.3
On Thursday, 4 June 2020, the Committee held its first public hearing. A total of eight public hearings were held over the course of the year, with 22 witnesses appearing across the hearings. The Committee heard from a range of witnesses including school students, previous Speakers and Members, parliamentary practitioners and academics, the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Museum of Australian Democracy.
3.4
In addition to the public hearings, the Committee held private briefings with the Speaker, the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, as well as the Clerk of the House. Given the procedural role each plays within the House, it was important to provide an opportunity for them to share specific views and experiences on both practices and procedures relating to Question Time. A private briefing was also held with the Parliamentary Education Office. In addition, the Committee held a private roundtable meeting which Members were invited to attend to discuss the rules and conventions around Question Time and consider opportunities for change.
3.5
The Committee also held private briefings with Speakers of lower houses in most other Australian jurisdictions. These briefings provided the Committee with insight into the Question Time practices and procedures adopted in state and territory parliaments. Many Speakers also provided written submissions to the inquiry.
3.6
In addition to the traditional submission and public hearing process, the Committee decided to conduct online surveys for Members and the public. The Committee launched the surveys, which could be accessed on desktop, tablet or mobile phone, via Survey Monkey. Both surveys were made available on 2 October 2019. The public survey closed on 31 October 2019 and the Members survey on 1 November 2019.
3.7
The public survey and the call for submissions were promoted through media releases, through social media managed by the Department of the House of Representatives and through emails to a wide range of academic and public institutions.
3.8
The public survey received 3,465 responses and the survey for Members received 16 responses.
3.9
The 13 questions asked in the public survey can be found at Appendix F. There were both open and closed questions, and eight questions provided an opportunity for the respondent to add comments to their answer. Questions related to current perceptions of Question Time and how Question Time could be improved, the timing of questions and answers and the time allocated to Question Time. The results of the survey are discussed throughout the report. Responses to background questions are at Appendix G.
3.10
The Members survey also asked questions relating to timing and current perceptions of Question Time. However, the Members survey also drew on experiences and observations made by Members while participating in Question Time and other functions of parliament. The 17 questions asked in this survey can be found at Appendix H. All but one of questions provided an opportunity for the respondent to make comments.
Current perceptions of Question Time
3.11
More than 95 per cent of respondents to the public survey indicated that they thought that the House should change how Question Time operates, with many people feeling that Question Time was not currently achieving its purpose. Criticisms included that Question Time, as currently conducted, is a waste of time and just theatre or ‘a farce’.
3.12
Survey respondents were asked an open-ended question about how Question Time could be improved. More than half of the 1,964 responses identified at least one of the following areas for improvement:
behaviour and conduct of Members during Question Time
role and powers of the Speaker
addressing and answering the question
the success of Question Time in fulfilling its purpose.
3.13
Perceived failure to answer questions emerged as a strong theme in both survey responses and submissions. The need for ministers to answer questions truthfully was also raised by numerous respondents. Similarly, the perception that many answers are not relevant to the question was a common complaint.
3.14
The conduct and behaviour of Members was raised as a concern both in survey responses and in submissions. Evidence criticised and contrasted the behaviour of Members with acceptable behaviours in other arenas such as schools, the workplace and sport. Survey responses and submissions stressed the need for the aggressive and adversarial nature of Question Time to be changed.
3.15
Several submissions outlined what they expected the behaviour of Members to encompass during Question Time. Mr Michael Vanderlaan specifically noted the importance of leadership, writing:
The vast majority of people is reaching out for positive, unifying, and visionary leadership.
Our federal representatives need to not only apply such leadership, but seen [sic] to be doing so as well.
Please lead us into the future. One of the places to start is within Parliament Question Time itself.
3.16
Mr Maris Bruzgulis argued that ‘the substance of Question Time should reassure Australians that the government is working for their good’.
3.17
The expectation that Members should set an example and be representative of the Australian public was also highlighted. Ms Belinda Jones argued that ‘all Members and ministers should set an example to all Australians, particularly school children, all over the country about how to argue and debate respectfully’.
3.18
However, many submissions and survey responses argued that these expectations are not being met. Adjunct Professor Colleen Lewis reflected on the dissatisfaction with Members’ behaviour conveyed in submissions, saying:
Question time … is seen as ineffective, not fit for purpose, a waste of taxpayers’ money, eroding trust in the parliament and a place of workplace bullying. And all of this is coming from those submissions that I just referred to. Any business or government department perceived in this way would likely be closed down if it were in the private sector or be significantly reformed if it were in the public sector. My concern is that the committee can recommend changes to procedures. For example, we can extend the amount of time for questions or we can talk about ministers having to answer more directly the question asked. All this can be done, but the problem with this at one level is that it actually requires a cultural change by members of parliament. The strong message from the vast majority of the submissions that I read was that there is a toxic culture in the chamber.
3.19
The author of submission 16 wrote:
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.
3.20
Several other submissions compared the behaviour of Members negatively to societal expectations of behaviour outside Parliament. In their submission, Ms Kate Thwaites, the Member for Jagajaga, and Ms Peta Murphy, the Member for Dunkley, noted their observations of visitors in the gallery’s ‘amazement at a display of behaviour that would not be tolerated in any other workplace (or school playground)’, a sentiment also reflected by some of the members of the public who responded to the survey or made a submission. Similar sentiments were raised by Mr Chris Curtis, who noted that ‘no other workplace is so rife with bullying, name-calling and all-round bad behaviour’.
3.21
Former Speaker Ms Anna Burke noted that ‘when you rock in at Question Time, the notion of being a parliamentarian goes out the door, and you become a partisan beast, and that’s what the public sees.’ She considered this ‘reasonable at one level, because it is an adversarial system of government … but it also degenerates so that the public thinks that it’s … kindergarten on steroids …’
3.22
Several submissions and comments in the public survey called for more and/or stronger powers for the Speaker to enforce better conduct of Question Time—for example, stricter penalties for not answering questions, use of props, non-attendance, unparliamentary language and/or poor behaviour. Having an independent Speaker was also raised in the public survey and in some submissions. This included the alternative of electing someone from the judicial system as Speaker. The role of the Speaker during Question Time is discussed further below, but consideration of an independent Speaker is outside the scope of this inquiry.
3.23
In addition to seeking views on whether Question Time should change and how it could be improved, both surveys asked several questions relating to the timing of questions and answers, who should ask questions and current perceptions of Question Time.
3.24
With regards to who should be able to ask questions, submitters and survey respondents were largely unsupportive of ‘Dorothy Dix’ style questions. However, while some suggested that only non-government Members should be able to ask questions, others argued that all Members should maintain the right to raise issues concerning their electorate.
3.25
Other suggestions for change included the introduction of portfolio-based Question Time, questions from the public, constituency questions, supplementary questions and providing questions in advance.
3.26
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 will discuss and address many of these suggestions in more detail.
3.27
The Committee notes that it considers suggestions regarding additional sitting days, publication of Question Time Briefs, drug and alcohol testing, monetary penalties and electronic voting in the Chamber to be outside the scope of the inquiry and does not address them in this report.
3.28
It was noted in evidence that the layout of the Chamber may emphasise the combative nature of Question Time. While the Committee acknowledges that the layout may affect the tone of discussion, it considered this to be beyond the scope of the inquiry.
Purpose of Question Time
3.29
Central to this inquiry is the purpose of Question Time. Evidence received shows that Question Time means different things to different people. A strong theme across many submissions and comments in the public survey was that the purpose of Question Time is to hold the government to account for its policies and actions. However, comments made throughout the course of the inquiry were critical of whether accountability was being achieved.
3.30
The importance of government transparency was also mentioned in some submissions but was more often implicit. The concept was often linked to accountability. Government communication to voters, such as to provide information on government policies, was also mentioned by a small number of submissions and survey comments.
3.31
Survey respondents were asked an open-ended question about what they would like the House to accomplish during Question Time. Comments with a primary focus relating to ‘accountability and transparency’, ‘clear, direct and genuine answers’, ‘matters of public concern’ and ‘honesty and truth’ accounted for 68 per cent of responses. The relative prevalence of each of these topics is indicated in the figure below.
An accountability mechanism
3.32
In practice, Question Time facilitates parliamentary scrutiny of the executive in the following ways:
Question Time occurs every sitting day, allowing for regular questioning of ministers on topical issues.
Question Time is the most public part of the sitting day due to the media and public attention it receives.
By convention, all ministers are expected to attend Question Time every sitting day. Absences are noted and explained by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the period.
Ministers come to Question Time prepared to answer questions, having been briefed by their departments.
3.33
In her submission to the inquiry, the Clerk noted that the initial focus of questions was on important or urgent matters. However, this requirement was removed from the standing orders in 1963. This change, the Procedure Committee later observed, placed more emphasis on accountability as it ‘gave questioners the opportunity to turn “a searchlight upon every corner of the Public Service”‘.
3.34
Some submissions and respondents to the public survey agreed with the traditional concept of Question Time as a time to seek information and to hold the government to account but felt that current Question Time practices meant that accountability was not being achieved. As a result of this, many felt disenchanted, some to the extent that they chose not to watch Question Time.
3.35
Professor John Wanna’s view was that, while historically Question Time was meant to be a mechanism to scrutinise the executive, this was only a formality:
It is much more about other things—theatre, more partisan jousting, honing political skills—but, often, a lot of the discussion in question and answer is evasion and obfuscation.
As such, he argued, ‘Question Time is more a shield for executive government rather than a scrutiny’.
3.36
Dr Ruxandra Serban reflected on the importance of Question Time as follows:
… question time matters in holding the government to account. Fine-tuning the procedure to get question time to achieve this request for information and explanations better is one thing, but question time, in itself, is relevant and matters and is a forum for parliament to hold the government to account. I think all parliaments have this debate around how to fine-tune their procedures to achieve this better, but the procedure, in itself, is important.
A forum in which to seek information
3.37
House of Representatives Practice states:
The capacity of the House of Representatives to call the Government to account depends, in large measure, on its knowledge and understanding of the Government’s policies and activities. Questions without notice and on notice (questions in writing) play an important part in this quest for information.
3.38
Any private Member may ask a question. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries may not ask questions, although there have been instances in which both have asked questions of the Speaker. It is the practice of the House to give priority to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in receiving the call, in preference over other opposition Members. The Speaker allocates the call as evenly as possible between the opposition and the government, with independent Members receiving the call in proportion to their numbers.
3.39
Question Time provides the House with an important opportunity to publicly seek information from the executive on the issues of the day. Questioners are given wide scope and may ask a question on almost any issue for which the government is responsible. While there is no requirement that ministers answer questions, there is an expectation both within and outside the House that they do so.
3.40
Respondents to the public survey identified Question Time as an avenue for seeking and receiving information from the executive. In particular, respondents highlighted that Question Time should inform the public and debate matters of public concern. Question Time was also seen as a mechanism where the government can clearly communicate its policies and actions.
3.41
When considering the role of Question Time in seeking and obtaining information, Professor Wanna noted:
We can’t make ministers answer the questions that the opposition or the crossbench want them to answer. They’re asking questions to try to elicit information and what the minister says, the minister is accountable for. If they’re trying to be evasive, or to obfuscate or to be economical with the truth then it’s the job of the media and the parliament, and popular discussion, to expose that kind of practice …
He went on to say later:
Rather than having the rhetorical, polemical jousting that we see now in question time, I think improving the exchange of information would do a lot more to encourage people to think seriously about some of the issues we’re confronting.
Political advantage
3.42
House of Representatives Practice notes that, although the purpose of questions is ostensibly to seek information or press for action, due to the significant public focus on Question Time it is often a time for political opportunism. In practice:
Opposition Members will be tempted in their questioning to stress those matters which will embarrass the Government, while government Members will be tempted to provide Ministers with an opportunity to put government policies and actions in a favourable light or to embarrass the Opposition.
3.43
In his submission to the 44th Parliament’s Procedure Committee inquiry into standing orders in relation to Question Time, Mr David Elder, the then Clerk of the House, recognised that the ostensible purpose of Question Time is sometimes contrasted with the actual purpose of Question Time, which is the contest for political advantage. However, Mr Elder argued that ‘these elements can be seen as inextricably linked—accountability is the goal, seeking information is the means, and political advantage is a motivation’.
Comment
3.44
Historically and theoretically, the purpose of Question Time is to provide Members, and by extension the public, an opportunity to seek information or press for action on matters pertaining to public affairs. The Committee believes that the opportunity Question Time provides to publicly hold executive government to account and to seek information from it is its primary purpose. This has been a key consideration for the Committee when making the recommendations in this report.
3.45
The Committee acknowledges that, in practice, Question Time is used for political opportunism. While the Committee recognises that this is inherent in the nature of such a forum, where each question or answer is an opportunity to press for political advantage, it notes that many believe the way in which this is conducted is ‘unedifying’ or indeed unacceptable. It believes there are opportunities to improve the tenor of Question Time, the behaviour on the floor and some of the current practices which may overshadow the pursuit of accountability and information.
Culture, behaviour and visibility
Access to Question Time
3.46
Question Time is the most visible part of the sitting day. Members of the public can follow Question Time in a number of ways.
3.47
Under section 4(1) of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is required to broadcast the proceedings of the Senate, the House or a joint sitting from a medium wave national (radio) broadcasting station in the capital city of each state, as well as Newcastle. The allocation of the live radio broadcast between the House and the Senate is governed by general principles adopted by both houses, with the allocation of broadcasting between the houses following a determination made by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. The principles specify that, at the conclusion of the live broadcast from one house, questions without notice from the other house are to be re-broadcast.
3.48
Below are the broadcasting and rebroadcasting schedules for ABC radio.
Table 3.1: Live broadcasting of proceedings on ABC Radio
|
|
|
|
|
Monday
|
House of Representatives
(Senate rebroadcast later)
|
[no sitting]
|
|
Tuesday
|
Senate
(House of Representatives rebroadcast later)
|
House of Representatives
|
|
Wednesday
|
Senate
(House of Representatives rebroadcast later)
|
Senate
|
|
Thursday
|
House of Representatives
(Senate rebroadcast later)
|
Senate
|
Source: Based on Joint Committee on Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings standing determinations relating to the radio broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings
3.49
The ABC estimated recent audience reach for the live broadcasting across five capital cities to be between 47,000 and 60,000 people (with figures oscillating within this range over time).
3.50
Access to proceedings of the House for televising has been permitted since 1991. The Department of Parliamentary Services makes televised coverage of the House of Representatives, the Federation Chamber, the Senate and selected parliamentary committee hearings held in Parliament House available to view live through the aph.gov.au website. Archived recordings are also available on the website.
3.51
Data provided by the Department of Parliamentary Services shows that there were 128,171 visits (122,757 from Australia) to the live webcast of House Question Time and 18,350 visits (13,143 from Australia) to archived recordings of Question Time on the Australian Parliament House website from the commencement of the 46th Parliament (2 July 2019) to 31 March 2020. Question Time from the House is also available through ‘About the House TV’ for approximately six months.
3.52
The official broadcast is also available for use by television networks. House Question Time is televised live by the ABC on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and rebroadcast late at night on Mondays and Thursdays—that is, on the days that the Senate’s Question Time is televised live.
3.53
The ABC’s live television coverage of Question Time from the relevant house is available on both ABC1 and the ABC News Channel at 2 pm. Table 3.2 outlines the average audience figures for the television broadcast of Question Time on both channels over the period 2016 to July 2020.
Table 3.2: ABC Question Time live television broadcast—average audience
|
|
|
|
|
2016
|
39,329
|
49,879
|
|
2017
|
37,257
|
45,485
|
|
2018
|
36,755
|
40,475
|
|
2019
|
29,139
|
32,775
|
|
Up to July 2020
|
37,048
|
44,736
|
Source: Australian Broadcasting Cooperation, Submission 50, p. 3. Figures are for 5-city metro.
3.54
The televised proceedings of the House and Federation Chamber are also broadcast live on ParlTV within Parliament House and externally to government departments.
The public face of the House
3.55
As Professor Lewis put it, Question Time is ‘the public face of parliament’. It is the main way in which members of the public observe their elected representatives interacting and therefore the basis on which many viewers make their assessment of the standards of behaviour in the House. The Clerk’s submission pointed out: ‘Because public attention focuses so heavily on this part of the day’s proceedings, it is often a time for political opportunism. At times, behaviour can become disorderly…’
3.56
Ms Daryl Karp, Director of the Museum of Australian Democracy, noted in relation to visitors to the museum that:
… the feedback is very much that they consider question time to be how parliament operates. It is the window through which they see parliament in operation, as you said, and it really does impact negatively on the body of work that gets done—the collaboration that happens, the shared activities that take place. People continually think of question time as ‘gotcha’ moments with poor standards of behaviour, and I think that’s the big challenge for the visitor.
3.57
When considering the nature of Question Time, Professor Mark Evans, Director of Democracy 2025, noted that:
The evidence from our survey research and focus groups suggests that the majority of Australians dislike conflict driven, adversarial politics … But, of course, at the same time political parties and the media have a tradition in which they embrace adversarial politics.
3.58
Some evidence received by the Committee also highlighted concern about the impact that the nature of Question Time had on female politicians. Ms Karp told the Committee that the Museum of Australian Democracy had, with the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation, interviewed 15 female politicians and ‘the female politicians really felt that it was a very adversarial approach which disadvantaged in some instances female styles of working’.
3.59
Students from Catholic College Wodonga felt that Parliament was male‑dominated and produced a ‘jock culture’ where Members are seen as ‘trying to feed their ego’.
3.60
When considering the public’s perceptions of the adversarial culture displayed during Question Time, Ms Cheryl Kernot, a former Member, said:
People are very judgmental in terms of how they think parliamentarians should behave. They don’t know what it’s like to be in that chamber. They don’t know the atmosphere. They don’t know what it means—that coming together of 150 people just once a day and that competitive desire to be judged by the media as having made some significant win or dent or something in question time. It’s hard for ordinary viewers to understand that culture …
3.61
Students from Catholic College Wodonga referred to ‘the huge spotlight’ the media placed on Question Time and noted the different effects the increased public focus has:
[Its] open and public process allows the public to be informed and then, come election time, people are able to be better informed … Also, even though it distracts from the effectiveness of question time, there is significant entertainment value in question time.
3.62
The notion of Question Time as ‘theatre’ was also raised by survey respondents. Many who used the term were expressing concern that the theatrical nature of Question Time was at the expense of genuine questions and answers, although some believed that the theatre made it more engaging.
Culture and change
3.63
In her submission, the Clerk noted that, in her view, there are three elements which determine the conduct of Question Time: the written rules (that is, the standing orders and associated practice and traditions), the tools that the House provides to the Speaker to enforce these rules, and the more general culture and behavioural norms of the day.
3.64
Dr Serban recognised that the way in which a parliament is formed contributes to the culture of that parliament. Reflecting on her research looking across a number of parliaments, she told the Committee:
I can say that this debate about spontaneity and whether the questions are genuine is to a large degree a debate in Westminster parliaments … In some European parliaments, where there is a more consensual culture that flows from the fact that parties are used to entering coalitions to be in government, it leads to a less adversarial culture on the floor of parliament or in the plenary. So in a sense, this element of party discipline and parties working in a unitary way to ask questions is typical to Westminster parliaments, and I don’t think it can be necessarily avoided altogether.
3.65
The Hon. Mr Kevin Rozzoli, from the Accountability Round Table, spoke of the potential for rules to assist in addressing behaviour, stating:
… it is the debasement of the rules that are there—because the rules are perhaps not clearly enough enunciated to give the Speaker the capacity to discipline the answers to questions—that has created the volatility which now is so unattractive to the Australian public. They see question time and they think the whole of parliament is like that and they think they’re all a bunch of ratbags or whatever you like to call it. But I certainly wouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. I would seek to modify the existing rules. Come from the existing structure but develop something which introduces a greater degree of discipline into how it runs.
3.66
Several witnesses acknowledged the capacity for cultural change. In particular, former Speaker Ms Burke noted that:
… when I first got elected in 1998 to when I retired I think there was some progression in the way question time was handled. It demonstrates that, through changes in standing orders and through acceptance of the members of parliament that a better standard is required, because the public is crying out for it, changes can be made.
She went on to say later in the hearing:
It can be done. You only have to look at how question time is being handled at the moment, during COVID, to see that you can actually rise above the fray if you want to and if you have the standing orders to ensure that.
3.67
However, the Committee heard concerns about the extent to which amendments to standing orders alone can lead to cultural and behavioural change. Former Speaker Mr Jenkins spoke of this as the difficulty that confronted the Committee in its work, saying that unless cultural change led to behavioural change then even a ‘close to ideal set of standing orders’ would not totally achieve change. Professor Lewis similarly said, ‘If you want to change behaviours, you’ve got to change the culture which is manifesting itself in the behaviours.’
3.68
In its 2006 study tour of other parliaments, the Procedure Committee formed the view that question periods in the parliaments of the United Kingdom, Scotland and France were not characterised by the same level of ‘disputation’ evident in the House. It identified certain procedures which may have a positive impact on Members’ conduct in those parliaments but also identified other factors, such as the standards of behaviour expected from Members of Parliament, which were outside the scope of the rules of the House.
3.69
The Committee has identified a series of changes to practice and procedure that it believes will improve the operation of Question Time, and these are set out in the recommendations made in chapters 4 to 7. The Committee hopes that adopting the recommended changes to standing orders and practice would assist and promote behavioural change. As noted, Members and parties have a role in cultural change, and this is also discussed in later chapters.
The complexity of the rules and the role of the Speaker
3.70
Throughout the course of the inquiry, a consistent theme has emerged concerning the challenges faced by the Speaker during Question Time and the need to clarify the Speaker’s role. This section focuses on this theme more specifically.
3.71
Following traditions established in the United Kingdom’s House of Commons, the Speaker of the House is responsible for enforcing ‘the observance of all rules for preserving order in … proceedings’. In preserving order and decorum, the Speaker is said to derive their authority from:
a high degree of impartiality;
the provision of adequate opportunities for all sections to participate in the deliberations of the House; and
a completely objective interpretation of the standing orders and precedent.
3.72
Standing order 3(e) stipulates that:
The Speaker (or other Member presiding) is responsible for ruling whenever any question arises as to the interpretation or application of a standing order and for deciding cases not otherwise provided for. In all cases the Speaker shall have regard to previous rulings of Speakers of the House and to established practices of the House.
This provision has been in place since the 41st Parliament, when it was introduced during a review of standing orders.
3.73
Prior to this, cases not provided for in the standing orders or by practice of the House were considered in line with the practice of the United Kingdom House of Commons ‘in force for the time being, which shall be followed as far as it can be applied’. With the development of the House’s own body of practice, and its documentation in House of Representatives Practice since 1981, reference to House of Commons practice became increasingly rare, and the reference to the House of Commons was therefore omitted from the revised standing orders which were adopted in 2004.
3.74
In the House, the Chair has several disciplinary options, which they may invoke to ensure the orderly conduct of the business of the House. Under standing order 92, the Speaker can intervene to prevent any personal quarrel between Members. The Speaker can also intervene when a Member’s behaviour is considered offensive or disorderly. In addition to standing order 92, the Speaker can also sanction against disorderly conduct under standing order 94. This includes ordering a disorderly Member to leave the Chamber for one hour, as well as ‘naming’ a Member.
3.75
Standing order 101 provides that the Speaker may direct a Member to change the language of a question asked during Question Time if the language is inappropriate or does not otherwise conform with the standing orders.
3.76
With regards to the application of standing orders to maintain order and decorum during Question Time, House of Representatives Practice states that:
Questions without notice by their very nature may raise significant difficulties for the Chair. The necessity to make instant decisions on the application of the many rules on the form and content of questions is one of the Speaker’s most demanding tasks. Because of the importance of Question Time in political terms, and because of the need to ensure that this critical function of the House is preserved in a vital form, Speakers tend to be somewhat lenient in applying the standing orders, with the result that, for example, breaches of only minor procedural importance have not prevented questions on issues of special public interest. The extent of such leniency varies from Speaker to Speaker and to some degree in the light of the prevailing circumstances. In addition, some latitude is generally extended to the opposition leaders in asking questions without notice and to the Prime Minister in answering them. The result of these circumstances is that rulings have not always been well founded and inconsistencies have occurred. Speakers have commented that only a small proportion of questions without notice are strictly in order and that to enforce the rules too rigidly would undermine Question Time.
3.77
Several submissions expressed concern that different Speakers have displayed different degrees of impartiality and/or that the rules Speakers must apply are open to interpretation. Many survey respondents also expressed concern that Speakers have not always acted independently or impartially. Professor Lewis queried the impartiality of previous and future Speakers and proposed that the Committee consider a system similar to the United Kingdom, where the Speaker resigns from his or her political party on appointment. Former Speaker the Hon. Mr Peter Slipper also held this view, noting that his own resignation from the Liberal-National party when he became Speaker meant that he was ‘not dependent on either side’.
3.78
In her submission, the Clerk noted that the need for the Speaker to instantly decide how the standing orders are to be applied is a challenging task. She also noted that the ‘ease with which standing orders can be interpreted and applied will naturally help to determine their effectiveness’. Similarly, former Speaker Mr Jenkins argued that ‘the more complicated you make the standing orders the harder it is, I think, for the chair to be able to adjudicate in using them’.
About the only tool that the Speaker has is the question of relevance, which I used to use from the chair fairly regularly. Even so, it didn’t stop the minister from going straight back to what he was doing before, thus not exactly flouting the ruling or the direction of the chair but going very close to it. It puts the Speaker in a very difficult position. So you really need some very clearly defined parameters which he has the authority to uphold.
Comment
3.80
The role of the Speaker is, in effect, that of an umpire who uses the rules to preserve order in the House. As standing order 3(e) sets out, the Speaker is responsible for interpreting and ruling on matters which are not clear or not provided for in the standing orders, and the Committee notes that this can be a challenging task, particularly in a charged environment. The Committee has made several recommendations throughout the report which aim to assist the Speaker in managing Question Time.
3.81
In its 1992 report on the standing orders governing questions seeking information, the Procedure Committee recommended that the Speaker make a statement at the beginning of each Parliament, and on other occasions as they judged necessary, outlining how the standing orders affecting both questions and answers would be applied.
3.82
Speakers have done this to varying degrees over time. For example, Speaker Andrew made a statement to the House in 2000, providing explicit delineation of how the standing orders relating to Question Time should be applied. In a similar vein, in 2004, just before the first session of Question Time under his stewardship, Speaker Hawker advised the House that, amongst other things, he would not be allowing supplementary questions, which he had the discretion to allow at the time.
3.83
While the Committee supports Speakers making such a statement should they choose to, it notes that this would only apply in areas where the Speaker had discretion or there is no provision made in the standing orders. The Committee hopes that, if its recommendations are adopted, there will be improved clarity in the rules the Speaker is charged with enforcing.