Question Time: How it is now, how it could be and how it should be Speech on the reform of parliamentary Question Time

Jeremy Travers, Campbelltown College of TAFE, New South Wales 26 June 2012

1.

Introduction Ladies and gentlemen, friends: this morning I wish to speak about parliamentary Question Time and reform that has occurred since 2010 and potential reforms that I feel may be needed to revive it. Once described by Paul Keating (Commonwealth, House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 24 November 1988, p 3205) as a courtesy from the government to the parliament, Question Time is undoubtedly the most popular part of the parliamentary sitting day. Whenever there is a news report on parliament, the footage shown will often be a 30 second grab from Question Time.

2.

The purpose of Question Time The purpose of Question Time (or questions without notice, as it is correctly called) is best described in House of Representatives Practice (Harris, 2005, p 527), citing Erskine May (23rd edn, p 345), as "to seek information or press for action". It is the most clear and public demonstration of the accountability of the Government (Harris, 2005, p 527) by the House of Representatives. Questions addressed to Ministers are required to be about matters which the Minister is responsible or officially connected. The rules of the House (the Standing Orders) (Department of the House of Representatives, 2010a, p 48) note that questions can only be asked to a Minister on public affairs, administration or proceedings pending in the House. This purpose is, however, different from what actually happens. As House of Representatives Practice notes (Harris, 2005, p 527), Question Time is often used as a time for political opportunism. Questions that are asked by an
1

Question Time: How it is now, how it could be and how it should be

Opposition Member of Parliament will in most cases be shaped in a way to embarrass the Government while questions asked by a Government Member of Parliament will be framed in a way that put a favourable light to government policies or embarrass the Opposition. The latter style of questions is commonly referred to as Dorothy Dixers as Ministers have arranged for those questions to be asked. House of Representatives Practice (Harris, 2005, p 527) indicates that the term is an illusion to a magazine column of advice to the lovelorn. 3. The 43rd Parliament, the 2010 Agreement for a better Parliament parliamentary reform, and subsequent reforms After the 2010 election, which resulted in 17 days of negotiation and an extra 17 minutes to determine the result thanks to Rob Oakeshotts speech, reform of parliamentary practice was an issue. Thanks to the Agreement for a better Parliament Parliamentary reform (the 2010 Agreement) (Australia, Parliament, 2010, p 2-3), the practice of Question Time was altered. The reforms that were introduced include time limits on questions and answers, an amendment to the Standing Orders that required answers to be directly relevant to the questions asked, the right of the Leader of the Opposition or his delegate to ask one supplementary question, and the restriction of points of order (which are defined in the House of Representatives Guide to Procedures (Department of the House of Representatives, 2010b, p 38), as to draw the Chairs attention to a breach of the rules of the House) during each answer, among other things. The agreement also decreed that Question Time was to end no later than 3:30pm on each sitting day. The reforms initially worked in the 43rd Parliament. My difficulty with the way Question Time currently operates is that instead of focusing on policy, our politicians appear to be focusing on abusing each other. As a seven year old watching Question Time when the Right Honourable Ian Sinclair was in the Speakers Chair, I saw that the abuse was hardly there. It was a case of asking questions such as why has the governments policy failed to protect the interest of [certain groups]? and answers such as thats a bit rich coming from the honourable member, who was part of a government who failed [certain groups] for the duration only three years ago.

Question Time: How it is now, how it could be and how it should be

The abuse was there but it was policy abuse. Nowadays it is questions such as why did the Prime Minister lie to the Australian people about introducing a carbon tax? and answers such as the Leader of the Opposition is such a hypocrite. With Question Time protected by parliamentary privilege like other proceedings in Parliament, nothing is going to stop people saying what they like. Such abuse goes against the purpose of Question Time and goes against the dignity of the Parliament. After Peter Slipper became Speaker in November 2010, Question Time was further reformed. Under the 2010 Agreement, questions were to be no longer than forty-five seconds and answers were to be no longer than four minutes. Under the Slipper reforms, questions are now 30 seconds long and answers are three minutes long. Until he vacated the Chair because of matters that I will not get into here, he also applied the directly relevant reform stricter, and I think better, than his predecessor (See, for instance, Commonwealth, House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 28 February 2012, p 2034, where the Prime Minister was sat down due to a lack of relevance). 4. Potential reforms that could be introduced I now turn to potential reforms that could, and I think should be introduced. Some of these proposals relate to those mentioned in the 2010 Agreement but takes them further. a. The length of question time One thing I always have had an issue with is the length of Question Time and who controls the length. House of Representatives Practice (Harris, 2005, p 529) states that the Prime Minister controls the length of Question Time and once he or she asks for further questions to be put on the Notice Paper, the Speaker is then obliged to move on. Another thing to note is that the Government has been known in the past to let Question Time go on until a certain Member from their side has asked a question. Malcolm Fraser was known for the practice. Sir Billy Snedden and Bernie Schevdin, in his biography Billy Snedden: An unlikely Liberal (1990, pp. 218-219) which was published after his death, noted that Fraser and the Whip

Question Time: How it is now, how it could be and how it should be

would become furious with [him] for not calling the person whom they wanted to call. Sir Billy also noted that Fraser would limit Question Time to forty-five minutes but occasionally let it go on until a certain person from his side got to ask a question. To me, this is giving the Executive more control over the House then they should have. In the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, however, it is the House and not the Executive that controls the length of Question Time. Russell D. Grove, who I had the privilege of working with in the past, notes in his book New South Wales Legislative Procedure, Practice and Privilege (1st edn, 2007, p 139), that Question Time is limited to 45 minutes or the answering of 10 questions, whichever is the later. I am more supportive of the time limit for Question Time as a whole as opposed to Question Time ending after the answering of a certain number of questions. This is mainly due to my firm belief that there should be no limit to the number of questions that are asked during the time period. So, on that basis, the House should control the length of Question Time instead of the Executive. b. Dorothy Dixers and direct relevance Another thing that the community (particularly on Twitter), as well as myself, have been constantly displeased at are Dorothy Dixer questions. If Question Time is a time to press for action and to seek information, as Erskine May states, there should be no need for Ministers to arrange for those types of questions to be asked. It should be for Members of Parliament themselves to determine what questions they will ask and to which Minister it is addressed. There are plenty of occasions for Government Ministers to attack Opposition policy, such as debate on legislation. That would be a perfect opportunity! There has been a query, from the ABCs Latika Bourke on Twitter, I believe, as to whether or not the Speaker can ban Dorothy Dix questions. In my view, the Speaker has no power to do so. I base my thinking on a ruling by a Speaker of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Sir Kevin Ellis (New South Wales, Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 29 November 1967, p 3855) that it is not for the Chair to judge if such questions are Dorothy Dix questions.

Question Time: How it is now, how it could be and how it should be

Another issue is direct relevance. Questions are asked about Government policy, hence the answers should directly relate to Government policy and nothing else. The Government should not focus on anything else other than its own policy. It might have been acceptable in the Keating years for him to go on about how troppo John Hewson was and how disastrous the Fightback! policy would be for Australia, but in this day and age where more people are tuning in to watch Question Time and even tweeting about it, a new approach can and should be taken. In short, there should be a literal interpretation of the phrase direct relevance. c. Points of order Direct relevance takes me onto my next point. Points of order were a key part of the 2010 Agreement. Only one point of order can be taken on relevance during each answer. If the answers were actually relevant, Members would not raise such points of order. In this regard, I am a firm believer of the United Kingdom practice that there is no such thing as points of order during Question Time. Speaker Boothroyd applied the principle quite frequently at Westminster (United Kingdom, House of Commons, Official Report (Hansard), 16 January 1997, Vol. 288, column 449; 19 January 1994, Vol. 235, column 883; and 6 March 1995, Vol. 256, column 1). My suggestion is simple: there should be no points of order during Question Time because, as Speaker Boothroyd said (United Kingdom, House of Commons, Official Report (Hansard), Vol. 256, 6 March 1995, column 1), they take time away from honourable members who have questions and I firmly believe that the focus of Question Time should be on questions and answers. If there is a matter of order, it should be up to the Speaker to pull the concerned Minister or Member into line. d. Suspensions of Standing and Sessional Orders and other interruptions during Question Time Another practice that has developed in the 43 rd Parliament is motions to suspend Standing and Sessional Orders during the time allotted for questions.

Question Time: How it is now, how it could be and how it should be

As of 11:19 am today, the number of suspension motions that have been moved during Question Time (Commonwealth, House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 25 June 2012, p 58 (Proof)) is 61. All of these motions have been moved by the Opposition and seek to condemn the Prime Minister, to call the Prime Minister to make a statement on a particular matter or to suspend Craig Thomson from Parliament after the Fair Work report into his alleged conduct was released. Quite frankly, my view is that there should be nothing in Question Time other than questions and answers. In the past, I have defended the right of the Opposition to move these motions and to have them debated. I have to say three words in relation to that: I was wrong. These motions are a complete waste of time and, like points of order, take time away from people who actually have questions to ask. House of Representatives Practice (Harris, 2005, p 529) notes that Question Time has usually not been extended due to a motion to suspend standing orders or other procedural interruptions. So what is the point of these motions? Apart from being seen on ABC1 before Play School and ABC News 24 in entirety, I cannot see the point of introducing these motions. Of course if there is a procedural interruption where the House is dividing on a motion to suspend a Member if the Speaker has named him or her during Question Time, obviously the House would have to deal with those matters. These matters are excluded from my comment that there should be noting in Question Time other than questions and answers. 5. Conclusion In concluding this speech, as I have been speaking for quite a while, I reaffirm what I said at the start: there are reforms that need to be introduced in order to revive Question Time. It has become noting more than a daily spectacle, a piece of parliamentary theatre or, to an extent, the parliamentary equivalent of the State of Origin rugby league series. By way of comparison, if you failed to ask a question in the proper form or answered the question in the proper from in 1955, Archie Cameron, the then Speaker, would have sat you down without hesitation. Today, the Speaker (or Deputy Speaker, in this case) is
6

Question Time: How it is now, how it could be and how it should be

likely to let you rephrase the question or give you warning that you are not answering the question on a couple of occasions before sitting you down. Governments, on both sides of the political scale, have taken Question Time for granted. It must cease. In the case of the House of Representatives, as I have mentioned, it is the Government that controls how long Question Time goes for. Question Time does not exist for the benefit of governments; it exists for the benefit of the House of Representatives. The government is accountable to the House, not the other way around. It is time for Question Time to meet its purpose: to seek information and press for action. Thank you.

Question Time: How it is now, how it could be and how it should be

Bibliography Australia, Parliament 2010, Agreement for a better Parliament Parliamentary reform, House of Representatives Misc. Paper 12107, Canberra. Commonwealth, House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 24 November 1988. Commonwealth, House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 25 June 2012 (Proof) Department of the House of Representatives 2010A, Guide to Procedures (4th Edition), CanPrint Communications, Canberra. Department of the House of Representatives 2010B, Standing and Sessional Orders as at 20 October 2010, Department of the House of Representatives, Canberra. Grove, Russell D. (ed.) 2007, New South Wales Legislative Assembly Practice, Privilege and Procedure (1st Edition), Ligare Pty Ltd, Sydney. Harris, Ian (ed.) 2005, House of Representatives Practice (5th Edition), House of Representatives, Canberra. McKay, Sir William (ed.) 2004, Erskine Mays Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (23rd Edition), LexisNexis, London. New South Wales, Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 29 November 1967. Snedden, Sir Billy Mackie & Schevdin, M. Bernie 1990, Billy Snedden: An unlikely Liberal, Macmillan, South Melbourne. United Kingdom, House of Commons, Official Report (Hansard), Vol. 235, 19 January 1994. United Kingdom, House of Commons, Official Report (Hansard), Vol. 256, 6 March 1995. United Kingdom, House of Commons, Official Report (Hansard), Vol. 288, 16 January 1997.