5.1
Instant decision-making regarding the many rules on the form and content of questions ‘is one of the Speaker’s most demanding tasks’. As the Clerk noted in her submission, in seeking to keep a balance between the rights of a questioner and those of the minister being questioned, it is inevitable that many questions without notice which are outside the strict rules are asked and answered. After placing the rules in some context, this chapter considers some of the ways that people thought rules might be improved to make Question Time more effective. Four elements are examined: better and more relevant answers, time limits, length of Question Time, and addressing disorder.
5.2
Mr Rozzoli considered that the existing structure and rules could be modified to introduce greater discipline, whereby the Speaker would have greater ‘capacity to discipline answers to questions’. Mr Rozzoli considered ‘You have to be a very brave Speaker to move from the strict tenor of [a] standing order which gives no parameters whatsoever … it would be much easier and much more straightforward, and would lead the parliament back into a much more dignified manner of proceedings if the Speaker was given a much more clear-cut definition of what he could do to draw a recalcitrant minister into line.’
5.3
The Committee heard that that a balance was required between prescribing practice through the standing orders and finding other ways to improve the cultural aspects of how Question Time was used, for example Dorothy Dix style questions. Mr Jenkins considered that the more complicated the standing orders, the harder it was for the Chair to adjudicate using them. In his view, by the very nature of Australia’s system of parliamentary democracy, the standing orders are not a level playing field – ‘they allow the government to get on and govern.’ Nevertheless, he considered that the substance of questions and answers could be tightened up to become more level, particularly by applying the rules relating to questions to answers.
5.4
Some saw the cultural aspects of Question Time, rather than the rules, as more critical to the final outcome. Mr Farr expressed his view that:
… the standing orders are not really deficient. It depends how the people with the numbers in the House – the Government – use Question Time. It also depends on the Speaker … it really is a matter of culture, and I don’t see how much change can be effected through standing orders, because they can be manipulated and ignored.
5.5
Dr Serban observed that:
… parliaments are institutions that are sometimes slow to reform because the standing orders are only the first layer of how parliaments operate. There are also conventions and established practice, and those are more difficult to change.
5.6
Only one quarter of respondents to the Members survey (four of 16) considered the Speaker did not have sufficient powers, with the majority considering the current situation was right.
5.7
Mr Jenkins considered that the move to ‘direct’ relevance had assisted, but he suspected that Question Time would be more efficient if the Speaker was given more support in tightening it up. Mr Slipper expressed that he considered that the Speaker ‘does have quite a lot of authority and Speakers sometimes … are hesitant to use the authority that the Speaker has’. The Accountability Round Table suggested extending the Speaker’s discretion [under Standing Order 101] to include the ability to direct a Member to change the language of a question, and to either offer a Member an opportunity later in Question Time to represent a revised question, or to direct that the question in a revised and acceptable form be asked at the next Question Time.
Comment
5.8
The Committee considers that its recommendations to amend standing orders would assist the Speaker in their role in managing Question Time.
5.9
More broadly, the Committee is mindful of standing order 3(e), which requires the Speaker to have regard to previous rulings of Speakers and to established practices of the House when making rulings. As new standards develop, they become part of established practice and the Speaker is in a better position to reflect on and uphold them.
5.10
The Committee acknowledges that initiating such change can be challenging because it may involve not only formal rule changes but also informal, cultural change.
5.11
Some of the practices discussed in this report are informal and responsibility for decisions around these practices belongs to political parties and individual Members. They have a key role to play in establishing the norms of the House. If they choose to lift the standards of Question Time, this will achieve improvement beyond what changes to standing orders alone could achieve. As new norms and practices are established, future Speakers will be able to uphold these higher standards.
Better, more relevant, answers
5.12
In this discussion on better answers, it must be noted that different combinations of procedures related to questions and answers may affect answers in different ways—for example, specifying types of questions at the same time as changing time limits for answers.
5.13
Failure to answer questions was a common complaint in submissions. Some linked a lack of straight answers to an undermining of confidence in the parliamentary process. Many requested a review of the rules, and stronger enforcement of ‘relevance’ and ‘direct relevance’.
Relevance
5.14
Any discussion on better answers involves relevance. Hence discussion of time limits and various suggestions for rule changes in the following sections also relates to relevance. All Australian legislative assemblies have some form of relevancy requirement for answers.
5.15
Relevance of answers and perceived responsibility to answer the question has long been a matter raised in relation to questions without notice in the House. The requirement for answers to be relevant has been in place in the standing orders since 1963. Since 2010, an answer must be ‘directly’ relevant to the question; however, this remains subject to the interpretation of the Speaker. A point of order regarding relevance may be taken only once in respect of each answer.
5.16
Speaker Smith has taken the approach in ruling that an answer that relates to one part of a question is directly relevant (an approach not dissimilar to other recent Speakers such as Mr Jenkins and Ms Burke).
5.17
The Clerk noted that:
The requirement for direct relevance has given Speakers greater authority in what has long been a difficult area. However, the vast majority of points of order raised during Question Time continue to be on relevance.
5.18
The question of defining relevance arose in various submissions, with several stating or implying that broad discussion of the policy topic should not be enough for the answer to be deemed relevant to the question. Mr Mitchell argued that relevancy in answers should be tightened and Mr Travers considered that there should be a strict interpretation of what constitutes a ‘directly relevant’ answer.
5.19
Some called for relevance to be related more closely to the question asked. For example, Mr White wrote that there should be a requirement to answer direct questions fully and succinctly, and that relevance should be redefined to require ‘specific and complete relevance to the question’. Ms Thwaites and Ms P. Murphy argued for ‘a definition of relevance which requires ministers to address only the specifics of the question asked and which prevents gratuitous personal or partisan attacks’. Mr Travers put that relevance should be judged against the standing orders, not on the satisfaction of the questioner.
5.20
Mr White suggested that the Speaker should have discretion to allow a supplementary question if a minister fails to be relevant when directed by the Speaker—’currently, failure to remain relevant, bears little consequence’. Some other submissions suggested there be consequences or penalties for not adequately answering a question, especially after direction from the Speaker—for example, a warning and then expulsion with loss of pay, or being held in contempt. Various suggestions were made to improve answers, including:
questioners identifying their question by type (such as constituency, policy, public interest) to assist in determining relevance of the answer
removing preambles from questions, to encourage simple, straightforward answers
indicating at a set time into the answer that a preamble or background must end and the answer must begin
requiring the first part of an answer to provide the core answer (for example ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘don’t know’, ‘national security restrictions’) before moving on to detail
shortening the time for answers
not being able to conclude answers just as a point of order is indicated.
5.21
The Speaker of the Victorian Legislative Assembly noted that, although it is no longer in sessional orders, in the 58th Victorian Parliament the Assembly had a sessional order that gave the Speaker the power to direct a minister to provide a written response by 2 pm the next sitting day if the Speaker determined that the answer given in Question Time was not responsive.
Comment
5.22
The Committee’s view is that ministers must be relevant when answering questions. Simply addressing the subject matter of the question should not be enough to satisfy the requirement of direct relevance under the standing orders—information provided must actually assist in answering the question.
Balancing the rules for questions and answers
5.23
The Clerk’s submission noted that:
… the fact that there are not similar restrictions applying to answers as apply to the form and content of questions has contributed to a perception that the rules favour the government of the day.
5.24
Her submission also noted the 1992 recommendation of the Procedure Committee (which was not adopted by the House) to simplify the standing order on questions to read:
Questions without notice will be concise, seek information, relate only to one subject and not contain material not necessary to the understanding of the question.
5.25
The Clerk considered that, whether or not the House would now be ready to adopt a similar recommendation in its entirety, it highlighted:
… a key point: that the rules relating to questions also affect answers. For example, specifying that a question could relate to only one subject may have the benefit of simplifying the application of the rule of relevance for answers.
5.26
The Clerk also referred to a 2015 submission by the then Clerk, Mr David Elder, to the Committee’s last Question Time inquiry, which lapsed at the conclusion of the 44th Parliament. Mr Elder had argued that, following the introduction of time limits on questions and answers since 2010, the time was right for the Committee to revisit the 1992 recommendation. He had considered that because limited time meant questions were obliged to be short and to the point, without containing too much extraneous information, the Committee might conclude that experience had shown that detailed rules on the content of questions without notice had become less necessary or not necessary at all.
5.27
An alternative suggestion put by some, including Mr Jenkins and Ms Kernot, was that the rules for questions should be extended to answers. Mr Rozzoli stressed ‘the need to spell out the confines of how a minister can answer a question’, rather than having to rely so heavily on the relevance rule. Dr Coghill said that ‘chief amongst the things that can be done is to redraft standing orders so that there is a requirement that a minister must answer …’. Professor Evans put that ‘questions shouldn’t contain arguments, insults, opinions or debates, and this should be extended to answers to encourage a more honest and robust exchange of information.’
5.28
Mr Elder submitted in 2015 that he ‘suspect[ed] that an increase in the number of rules regarding the content of answers might produce an increase in the number of points of order, rather than have any other effect’. Instead, he considered further reducing the time limit for answers might be more likely to produce more relevant answers.
Time limits for questions and answers
Current standing orders and practice
5.29
Questions can last up to 30 seconds when asked by government and opposition Members and 45 seconds for non-aligned (cross-bench) Members. Each answer can run for up to three minutes. Generally speaking, time limits for questions and for answers were supported. Ms Burke considered that time limits on questions and answers was one of the most beneficial things during her time in Parliament, but considered that it could be tighter again (including in terms of length of Question Time). The Clerk considered that ‘the introduction of time limits has improved the efficiency of proceedings during Question Time and has allowed for a greater number of Members to ask questions seeking information at each sitting’. In 2015, then Clerk Mr Elder put the view that ‘the imposition of time limits on questions and answers [had] been beneficial to the conduct of Question Time’.
5.30
Standing orders and practice varies across parliaments, with some having time limits and some (such as Western Australia) leaving it to discretion of the Speaker. The Australian Capital Territory, for example, has no time limits for questions (they need to be brief and relate to a single issue) but does have a two-minute time limit for answers.
5.31
Dr Serban noted that Australia and Canada have particularly short time limits for questions, although Australia provides more time for answers. Dr Serban noted that, on time limits, ‘views vary as to what works and how it works’. Time limits alone do not determine the content of questions, but can facilitate different types of questioning. Relatively short questions can be more to the point, but there is less scope to go into depth on a topic. Limiting time for answers ‘might not necessarily reduce conflictual behaviour but it might help concentrate the answer that is given’.
Increasing vs decreasing time limit for questions
5.32
In 2015, then Clerk Mr Elder considered the limit on questions of 30 seconds to be ‘about right’. Mr Slipper supported brief questions—‘say 30 seconds’.
5.33
As shown in Figure 5.1, most respondents to the public survey considered that opposition members should have more time to ask a question or currently have about the right amount of time (at 30 seconds). A theme in comments was a desire for flexibility in allocation of time for complex and detailed questions (and answers).
5.34
Responses to the Members survey were more mixed. Nine of the 16 Members who responded considered that 30 seconds was the right amount of time for a question from an opposition Member. Three thought they should have less time and four thought they should have more time. Comments showed that, while some thought a shorter question could be more relevant, others considered that short questions were worse, as they encouraged ‘cleverness, rather than genuine information-seeking’.
Equal time limits for all Members
5.35
The Committee heard a variety of views on the current practice of having different time limits depending on who was asking the question. While some contributors thought that the additional time for cross-benchers to ask their questions was acceptable, others thought all Members should have an equal amount of time, with Mr Travers further arguing for the shorter time of 30 seconds. Figure 5.2 shows that most respondents to the public survey thought that cross‑benchers had about the right amount of time (with the current 45 seconds) or should have more time per question. However, of those that added comments in the survey, there was a theme expressed that all Members should have the same time for questions.
5.36
Nine of the 16 Members who answered the Members survey considered that cross‑bench Members should have less than 45 seconds per question. Six respondents answered that 45 seconds was the right amount of time, and one said they should have more time.
5.37
The Clerk suggested that ‘the Committee may … wish to review whether independent and minor party Members need a longer time limit for asking questions’. Ms Kernot was in favour of reducing the question length for cross-benchers: ‘… it would be a good idea—for brevity, for clarity and for understanding the point of the question—to actually bring them back to the same time as everybody else’.
Comment
5.38
On balance the Committee considers that all Members should have the same amount of time to ask a question. The Committee considers that 30 seconds is sufficient time to ask a question, and notes that relevance in answers is tied to all content within a question (and any preamble).
5.39
The Committee recommends that standing orders be amended to reduce the time limit for all questions to 30 seconds.
Increasing vs decreasing time limit for answers
5.40
A small number of submitters saw three minutes as appropriate for answers, while several argued for shorter time limits for answers.
5.41
Some suggested two minutes for answers, Mr Mitchell put forward 90 seconds, and Mr Slipper suggested 30 seconds. He considered that 30‑second answers would enable a lot more questions and answers, and would work well if combined with 30-second supplementary questions on the same matter. Mr Craig Caulfield put forward 30 questions of 30 seconds each, with answers of 90 seconds, giving more questions and succinct answers within a one-hour Question Time period.
5.42
Figure 5.3 shows that in the public survey, when asked about the length of time that ministers should have to answer questions, about half of respondents said that three minutes was right, and a quarter said they should have less time. Two minutes was a commonly proposed alternative. Of the comments made by respondents, key themes included a desire for ministers to directly answer the question, for there to be time for direct, clear, relevant answers, for there to be a flexible allocation of time for complex and detailed answers. Respondents also expressed concern over answers referring to opposition policies and positions.
5.43
No Members who responded to their survey thought answers should be longer, with half of respondents saying three minutes was right and half saying there should be less time, with four of those Members suggesting that two minutes should be sufficient.
5.44
The Clerk wrote that ‘the Committee might consider whether the time limit for answers could be further reduced from three to two minutes.’ In 2015, then Clerk Mr Elder also suggested that the Committee might consider reducing the time for answers from three minutes to two minutes. He considered that questions could be answered in the shorter time, and that ‘a shorter time limit for answers would enable additional questions to be asked, or provide time for supplementary questions should the Committee recommend their re-introduction’. Mr Elder considered that ‘answers may tend to expand to fill the time available, and shorter answers may be more likely to be more directly relevant to the question asked.’
5.45
Dr Serban noted the difference in time between questions and answers and considered that two minutes might ‘balance this slight discrepancy between the shorter time limit for questions versus the longer time limit for answers’.
Comment
5.46
The Committee considers that answers often fill the time available, and that a two-minute time limit for answers would facilitate a greater number of directly relevant answers.
5.47
The Committee recommends that standing orders be amended to reduce the time limit for answers to two minutes.
Length of Question Time
Current standing orders and practice
5.48
The duration of Question Time is at the discretion of the Prime Minister, as ministers cannot be required to answer questions. The Prime Minister (or the senior minister present) ends Question Time by rising and asking that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
5.49
The duration of Question Time, and the number of questions asked, has varied over time. The Procedure Committee has twice (in 1986 and 1993) recommended a minimum number of questions, and although the government of the day agreed (partially) in its response to the 1993 report, it was never reflected in standing orders. In the 45th Parliament, on average 19 questions were asked in each Question Time. So far in the 46th Parliament (to 25 February 2021), an average of 21 questions have been asked each Question Time, and Question Time has lasted on average for approximately 69 minutes.
Inquiry evidence
5.50
Views differed on the ideal length of Question Time. In the public survey, respondents were specifically asked about the duration of Question Time. As shown in Figure 5.4, 37 per cent of respondents said Question Time should be longer and 42 per cent said it was about the right length. Nine per cent said there should be less time for Question Time.
5.51
However, many comments in this part of the survey expressed the opinion that the quality of questions and answers was much more important than the time allowed. Other common themes expressed in comments included a desire for general assurance of both a satisfactory level of scrutiny of government and government transparency, and for more time to be allocated for complex issues, incorporating supplementary questions (with a commonly suggested total of 90 minutes).
5.52
Of those that suggested that Question Time should be shorted, 60 minutes was a commonly proposed time period.
5.53
Of the 16 Members who responded to the Members survey, nine thought Question Time was about the right length of time and seven said there should be less time.
5.54
Ms Burke considered half an hour for Question Time to be sufficient, if questions and answers were also shorter and there were time limits on points of order. Mr Slipper supported a longer Question Time, as did Professor Wanna. Dr Coghill considered that the current length was reasonable, and that while the number of sitting days ‘remains as low as it is’ he would not want to reduce the amount of time currently allocated to Question Time.
5.55
Some submissions commented on the length of Question Time. Views were mixed, with several calling for it be longer, and others suggesting less time. Another suggestion was to schedule Question Time for a set time period, to ensure it occurred and was not shortened.
5.56
As with the length of questions and answers, the duration of Question Time varies across state and territory legislatures. For example, the length of Question Time in Victoria’s Legislative Assembly is determined by its structure, having a set number of questions, while Question Time in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly is at the discretion of the Speaker and usually runs for about 45 minutes.
Comment
5.57
Taken together, the recommendations made by the Committee in this report would result in a Question Time of approximately the same time as now. The Committee notes that the combination of a set minimum number of questions (Recommendation 3) with new shorter time limits is likely to result in Question Time having a more predictable length over time.
Addressing disorderly behaviour/penalties
5.58
As discussed in Chapter 3, Members’ behaviour during Question Time is often poor, and this is disliked by many. This section reviews key elements of the evidence and some of the suggestions made for stronger rules to address poor behaviour.
5.59
Behaviour during Question Time was criticised and contrasted with the levels of behaviour deemed acceptable in schools, workplaces and sporting arenas. Many submissions specifically criticised behaviour such as yelling, name-calling, and general aggression. There was also criticism of campaigning by political parties. A more respectful exchange is clearly desired.
5.60
Numerous submissions made negative reflections on the behaviour of Members compared to societal expectations outside Parliament. Ms Thwaites and Ms P. Murphy, said they were:
… disheartened by the looks on the faces of visitors in the gallery, alternating between extreme boredom at question time’s irrelevance and amazement at a display of behaviour that would not be tolerated in any other workplace (or school playground).
If we bullied, insulted, abused as is done in parliament, we would be held accountable and certainly liable for our actions yet this is accepted as robust debate in our parliament.
5.62
Dr Coghill considered that different Prime Ministers had an impact on the order and volatility of Question Time. Mr Jenkins noted that some of the behaviour on the floor of the House, emphasised during Question Time, would be illegal in other workplaces, and he pointed out how Members, as legislators and community leaders, are involved in the change in the way society operates and the value placed on respect and stability but do not apply it within their own workplace. He considered regulation would require somebody to say ‘All right; enough’s enough.’ He also expressed disappointment at the way an opening up of rules on use of props to assist communication was ‘misused for political advantage and made a mockery of’. Mr Slipper considered that (regardless of party) government Members are better behaved in Question Time than opposition Members, as the government’s senior people—that is, ministers—get lots of opportunities to make their points.
5.63
In Ms Kernot’s experience, ‘it’s very hard not to interject … you’ve all fought so hard to be there, you want to be there, you believe in your world view, you don’t like it when it’s being misrepresented, you know when people are misleading, so it’s so hard to be the best student.’
A note on robust debate
5.64
The Committee heard how the idea of ‘robust debate’ in parliament is not straightforward, and it can be viewed with cynicism. For example, the author of submission 16 considered ‘robust debate’ to be code for ‘it’s okay to be abusive’.
5.65
Ms Anne O’Sullivan wrote that, in her view, ‘interjections are a sign of robust communication and should be tolerated, but the Speaker has the opportunity to manage excessive and inappropriate interjections’. She also wrote that ‘shouted answers are inappropriate and insulting’ and that while ‘using volume to accentuate a point is acceptable … it is rare that answers are given in a respectful and considered manner.’
5.66
Ms Burke considered that ‘for people to have confidence that we do have a robust democracy, they need to see robust actions taking place in the House’ and that there should be a contest of ideas, which is seen in Question Time. Having said that, it does not need to be ‘invective, personal and downright cruel’ at times.
5.67
Mr Crowe, of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, said that he understood why some people did not like the adversarial nature of Question Time, but he did not think this was the key problem, as, when functioning well, that provided for something else he thought Australians wanted to see—a contest of ideas. He considered that Question Time would benefit from reviving tension, with ‘greater transparency, greater pressure and less predictability’ so that it ‘shed[s] light on the operations of the government’.
5.68
Mr Jenkins commended Members on the conduct of Question Time during the COVID-19 pandemic, showing that orderly behaviour is achievable with the appropriate mindset. He considered that the standing orders could assist in achieving such a mindset by applying to answers the same rules that apply to questions. Creating such a standing order ‘would be a signal from the Procedure Committee, and a signal from the House, that that’s what should happen’.
5.69
Mr Jenkins agreed that there needs to be a certain level of robustness, ‘as long as it’s done appropriately’. Ultimately, ‘the Speaker is in the best position to try to achieve [such a balance], but it still requires the Chamber to fall in line’. He also considered that changing culture that has developed over time is difficult to do quickly. He suggested keeping on reminding people [Members] to take an outside viewpoint, rather than an insider view.
5.70
Although critical of several elements of current practice in the House, Ms Kernot considered it important to seek to further explain to the public the culture and atmosphere of the human interactions in the Chamber during Question Time.
Comment
5.71
The Committee holds the view that it is important to enable a passionate contest of ideas in the House, and that this is a critical element of a robust democracy. However, there is a line between respectful, robust debate during a contest of ideas, and disrespectful and/or disorderly behaviour. During this inquiry, the Committee finds it evident that some consider that conduct in Question Time crosses this line. To lift standards of behaviour, the Committee considers that it is important for the Speaker to have more tools to stop robust debate from becoming disorderly behaviour.
Stronger rules/code of conduct/penalties
5.72
Behaviour of Members has long been discussed in relation to Question Time. Standing order 94(a) enables the Speaker to direct a disorderly Member from the Chamber for a period of one hour (at any time, not just Question Time). This standing order, which has been in force since 1994, was recommended by the Procedure Committee in its 1986 report into Question Time. The other main mechanism that the Speaker has for dealing with disorderly conduct is ‘naming’ a disorderly Member under standing order 94(b), after which a motion is moved to suspend the Member for 24 hours (or longer if not the first occasion for that Member in a calendar year). Standing order 91 sets out the grounds on which conduct can be considered disorderly.
5.73
The Clerk made the point that there is an order of magnitude in gravity between these two measures, and suggested that, given these mechanisms are mostly used in Question Time, the Committee may wish to consider a middle option for the Speaker, perhaps via a direction to leave for more than an hour but less than a day. If it were at the full discretion of the Speaker, it could be used without significant time disruption to Question Time.
5.74
The Legislative Assembly of Victoria has a sessional order with a process for removing Members during Question Time whereby their suspension only applies during Question Time but can over to the next Question Time. When the Committee explored this idea, Mr Slipper considered it ‘an excellent idea’, given that it would be a heavy burden, particularly for senior government and opposition members.
5.75
Other stronger rules regarding behaviour and penalties for poor behaviour were suggested as well as changes to culture and norms. For example, a code of conduct could be introduced, potentially including fines for transgressions. Some submissions implied that there should be more self‑enforcement by Members and a degree of mutual respect, or at least that the entire onus for order should not be on the Speaker, but there was also a theme of having Members sign up to stricter rules that incur penalties for breaching them. In hearings, Professor Evans noted that in some jurisdictions parliamentarians sign a code of conduct governing behaviour in Question Time, with penalties for transgressions. The Accountability Round Table recommended asking the Prime Minister to issue guidelines for ministers.
5.76
As well as an expectation that questions should be answered, some submitters wrote of their expectation that Members should listen to answers. For example, Mr Michael Fraser suggested that Question Time would be more constructive if Members were silent in their chairs, only speaking when asked a question or delivering a speech. Mr Cork wrote that ‘Members should be warned once if they interject and then should be removed from the remainder of Question Time’. As mentioned above, Ms O’Sullivan considered that while interjections are a sign of robust communication and should be tolerated, ‘the Speaker has the opportunity to manage excessive and inappropriate interjections’, and this should be applied in a ‘fair and non-partisan’ way.
5.77
Mr Fraser said that ‘establishing a strict set of ground rules that are adhered to could go a long way to changing the way in which politicians from all parties engage with each other’ and asked the Committee to ‘imagine if [Members] knew they would be kicked out of parliament if too many warnings were ignored’. A number of submissions called for more/stronger powers for the Speaker to enforce better conduct of Question Time—for example, stricter penalties for not answering questions, non‑attendance, unparliamentary language and/or poor behaviour. Suggested penalties included monetary fines, docking of pay, losing the right to ask a question, and expulsion from the Chamber, with a range of detail about length of expulsion, timing and so on. One suggestion included the possibility of fines for the offending Member’s party. Mr Chris Curtis went further to say that, after a Member has been ejected three times, an electorate should be able to vote on that Member’s parliamentary future. Civil Liberties Australia suggested a visible yellow/red card system, combined with warnings, potential fines and expulsion from the Chamber.
5.78
Mr Travers argued for standing orders to be changed to prohibit the raising of points of order during Question Time, in part so that the Speaker would be freer to rule on matters of order. For example, Mr Travers considered the Speaker could then use their authority to sit a minister down for lack of relevance during an answer. Mr Young said that ‘the answer should be given in a straightforward manner; it should be succinct and to the point, without any embellishment’ and also called for the Speaker to be proactive rather than waiting for Members to ‘complain’ about matters including relevance.
5.79
There is a balance to consider between allowing procedural motions during Question Time and the need to keep Question Time flowing. There were differing views in submissions on allowing, reducing or ceasing procedural motions during Question Time, particularly motions to suspend standing orders. They take up time, but some consider access to them important.
5.80
The Accountability Round Table put that the Speaker should have discretion to declare a matter raised in a question as sub judice if it relates to proceedings before a Court and if it could prejudice a fair trial for any person party to those proceedings.
5.81
Most Australian parliaments have a form of general penalty for disorderly behaviour, not specific to Question Time. For example, the Western Australian Speaker has the ability to suspend a Member for the remainder of a day’s sitting if called to order for more than three times that day.
5.82
As mentioned, the Legislative Assembly of Victoria has also introduced a sessional order that makes the suspension of a Member during Question Time specific to Question Time. This means that if a Member is suspended during Question Time and the period of suspension is not completed by the end of Question Time, they serve the remainder of the suspension during the next Question Time period. Victoria’s standing orders also require answers to questions to be direct, factual and succinct. When a question is ruled out of order it is deemed to have been answered. In the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, a suspension of standing orders cannot be called during Question Time.
Comment
5.83
The Committee is mindful of the challenges faced by the Speaker in managing Question Time. It expects that the changes it has recommended to the time limits would encourage greater relevance, as would limiting references to alternative approaches.
5.84
To allow more free flowing responses, the Committee considers there should be no points of order allowed at the start of an answer.
5.85
To assist with managing disorder, the Committee considers that it would be helpful for the Speaker to have at their disposal an option that is of greater consequence than the current one-hour suspension from the Chamber but that is not as strong as ‘naming’ a Member under standing order 94(b). This would assist the Speaker to manage more serious or repeated disorderly behaviour that does not, in the Speaker’s view, warrant a 24-hour suspension from the House. Together with the existing provisions of standing order 94, it would create a scale of increasing severity. The new sanction would apply to disorderly conduct during Question Time, would not be open to debate or dissent, and would be served only during Question Time and the discussion of a matter of public importance.
5.86
The Committee recommends that the House amend standing orders so that no points of order on direct relevance can be taken in the first 30 seconds of an answer.
5.87
The Committee recommends that the House amend standing order 94 so that the Speaker can direct a Member who is disorderly during Question Time to leave the Chamber for a period of either one or three hours (on an escalating basis) to be served during Question Time and the discussion of a matter of public importance.