7.1
Public trust in our democratic institutions is critical. How people perceive these institutions affects how much confidence they have in them. The Committee heard over the course of the inquiry that many members of the public view Question Time in the House negatively, some to the extent that they reported they were disillusioned with the Parliament more generally as a result.
7.2
Question Time is, for many, the one part of the parliamentary day that they see, whether by watching a television or internet broadcast, listening to it on the radio or seeing clips played on the news. As such, it is the window through which the work of the House is viewed. Improving how Question Time is conducted therefore has the potential to improve trust in the House.
7.3
Some argued that televising Question Time has been in part responsible for this narrow focus. For example, it seemed to Ms Kernot that Question Time had become ‘a series of competitive performances for the purposes of a few seconds of evening television news’. However, the Committee considers broadcasting and reporting on Question Time to be part of the way in which it fulfils its function as an accountability mechanism.
7.4
Acknowledging that the House is often viewed through the ‘narrow theatrical prism of a televised 70 minutes a day’, the Committee considers that there is scope to promote other parts of the parliamentary sitting day, including proceedings in the Federation Chamber. It may be tempting to think of Question Time as a microcosm—that is, indicative of the way the House operates for the whole of each sitting day—but this is far from accurate.
7.5
There are other ways in which the House scrutinises legislation, policy and government expenditure. If done in conjunction with improving the way Question Time is conducted, highlighting these may help improve public perceptions of the way business is conducted in the House. For example, in hearings committee members discussed with witnesses the way in which the consideration in detail of appropriation bills in the Federation Chamber has been used to question ministers about proposed expenditure. Increased promotion of the other work of the House may also help address concerns that the House does not sit for enough days a year or does not have enough opportunities to hold the government to account.
7.6
The Committee recommends improved promotion of the other work of the House, including resources for Members and/or asking the Department of the House of Representatives to develop additional public information products.
Concluding remarks
7.7
In making its recommendations in this report, the Committee has aimed to look holistically at Question Time, not only in relation to the accountability, information-sharing and political functions it plays but also as a window on the House. The Committee sees implementing changes to Question Time as an opportunity to build and maintain trust in the institution of Parliament, both through enhancing the role Question Time plays in the democratic process and through improving conduct in the House at the most visible time of the day, so that it is a more representative reflection of how business is carried out at other times.
7.8
The Committee has recommended having a set number of questions, with shorter time limits for both questions and answers, and some restrictions on the type of questions asked by government Members. In the Committee’s view, this package of changes would assist the pursuit of executive accountability, encourage answers to be more relevant and improve the relevance of Question Time to constituents. At the same time, changes to what can be included in questions, when points of order can be taken and who answers questions would encourage more relevance and improved flow of questions and answers. Greater promotion of the other parts of the sitting day would also help members of the public to see the work of the House beyond Question Time.
7.9
Throughout the inquiry, the Committee has been conscious of the difficult role played by the Speaker, who needs to make decisions based on complex rules in a fast-paced and highly charged environment. For this reason, the Committee has recommended an additional option to assist the Chair to manage disorderly conduct during Question Time. The other changes to standing orders recommended by the Committee should also assist the Speaker in their role.
7.10
The Committee also heard throughout the inquiry it would take more than changes to the standing orders to change the culture of Question Time. Some of the informal practices discussed in this report are at the discretion of political parties and individual Members, who have a key role in establishing the norms of the House and who therefore have an opportunity to make improvements beyond what can be achieved through changes to standing orders alone.
7.11
As a means of delivering government accountability, as a forum for information sharing and as a window on the House, Question Time is a vital part of each sitting day. The Committee is optimistic that the way Question Time is conducted can be improved. It encourages all Members to play a part.
Ross Vasta MP
Chair
15 March 2021