Is Reconstructuring Question Time A Question Of Time? 

 

By Dino Cesta - 4 September 2014

ON LINE OPINION 

 

Cynicism is more the norm than the exception when it comes to Australia's political system. The Australian public have a healthy distrust of our politicians and overwhelmingly disenchanted with its political system.

 

These concerns are for all to see in what is seen as an essential democratic mechanism of the Westminster system - Question Time.

 

Question Time is considered a key check and balance in Australia's parliamentary and democratic system, in which Ministers of the sitting Government are under scrutiny, are held to account, and ensuring the powers and privileges bestowed upon them are not abused.

 

As it currently stands, Question Time is failing in its intent. Question Time needs an overhaul if it is to genuinely meet the non-negotiable standards of accountability, integrity, and transparency sorely missing from Australia's current system of government.

 

With all parties across the political spectrum guilty of perpetuating the current deficiencies, Question Time is effectively a waste of taxpayers' funds, and an inefficient use of parliamentarians' and public servants' precious time.

 

It is more an exercise in political gamesmanship and grandstanding for the cameras and viewing audience. It is also an exercise in pointing the finger of blame and to humiliate than asking objective and pertinent questions, in Ministers evading or responding to questions without necessarily answering them, or personal point scoring by attacking the man rather than the ball.

 

The reporting media must also take responsibility in perpetuating the current malaise in Australia's political system, and specifically, Question Time. Political reporters and news channels are more interested in presenting soap operatic news bites of politicians in full flight attacking their political foes, regardless of whether they have dealt with the issue at hand.

 

Unfortunately, this entertainment of unreality television deflects and obscures Australians' real life challenges, and will not strengthen the foundation of such an integral and central public institution of democracy.

 

There must be a better way that enhances the effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of the sitting Government and Parliament as a whole. Following are some ideas I place on the 'despatch box' of Australia's Parliament for consideration:

 

Proposal 1 - The 'Speaker':The role of Speaker is considered a most important office in the House of Parliament, established under the Constitution, and fashioned closely on the United Kingdom's House of Commons.

 

The Speaker oversees House debates, determines which members may address the House, is responsible for upholding orderliness during debate, ensure Members respectfully adhere to the rules of the House, and reprimand members who disregard the rules.

 

Unlike the UK approach where the Speaker discards all party loyalties, in Australia the Speaker continues to be a member of their political party, and may still be present at party meetings.

 

The expectation is the Speaker remains impartial however the Australian experience reveals otherwise. In the current Parliament, Speaker Bronwyn Bishop has been accused of incompetence by misinterpreting rules, seldom ruling against the Government, in biases toward the sitting Government, criticised for attending party room meetings, and holding Liberal Party fundraising functions in the Speaker's offices.

 

At one stage, Bishop ejected around 100 Labor Opposition Members from the chamber to the Government's nil. The Opposition ultimately introduced a no-confidence motion against the Speaker,the first against a Speaker since 1949. While the motion expectedly failed along party lines, it highlights the need to re-evaluate the role of Speaker.

 

At a minimum, a remedy is for the Australian Parliament to follow the UK model, or take the next step and legislate that a Member selected as Speaker must relinquish all party loyalties, not attend party room meetings or political fundraising activities in order to present some semblance of political impartiality.

 

An alternative approach is for the Speaker to be chosen by the voting public from the list of nominated candidates for Speaker on the ballot paper at election time. This will help ensure greater independence by the Speaker and who is now more directly accountable to the public.

 

Proposal 2 - Structure of Question Time:The standard practice is questions are without notice from the Opposition benches, followed by a supplementary question, with alternating 'Dorothy Dix' questions from Government backbenchers.

 

Due to the nature of Question Time, Ministers cannot totally predict the questions to be asked by Opposition Members. Ministers and their staff normally anticipate the type of questions to be asked based on the issues of the day and potentially emerging issues. This can result in an inefficient use of time and resources.

 

An alternative approach is to place Opposition questions on notice and for responses to be tabled and presented at the next Question Time sitting. This permits questions to be more detailed, probing and allows Ministers to prepare responses which are more thorough, informative, and substantive.

 

Further, serious consideration should be given in permitting questions on notice from the Government to the Opposition front benches in Question Time. Oppositions must also be held to account and must demonstrate they are a viable alternative Government.

 

This will assist the voting public in gaining greater clarity on policy positions, and not tripping into Government on a policy platform of one sentence slogans and negativity.

 

Proposal 3 - 'Dorothy Dix' Questions: Following on from the previous proposal, and in what is another out-dated tradition, Ministers organise for Government backbenchers to ask pre-arranged questions (i.e. Dorothy Dixer) on specific issues. This provides a Government backbencher with an opportunity to briefly be in the public spotlight, a Minister to promote the Government, communicate any perceived successes on policy, and score political points.

 

To improve the quality of questions in Question Time, consideration should be given to not permitting pre-arranged questions from Government backbenchers to a Minister. This ensures more questions that challenge and scrutinise the sitting Government as well as Opposition parties, and help raise the standard of accountability and transparency in Parliament.

 

Proposal 4 - Removal of Members:The Speaker can remove or suspend a Member from the House where they have breached the rules or committed a serious conduct violation.

 

Considering the recent excessive expulsion of Labor members by Speaker Bishop, and to minimise the partiality of removing members from the House, a proposal is for a House vote to take place and the motion must obtain a minimum either two-thirds or three-quarters majority to pass. This compares to the standard practice of voting along party lines.

 

These proposals may be a bridge too far for many. But today's fringe or cutting edge can be tomorrow's mainstream. Sometimes, we realise a little too late, that we've outgrown the old way of doing things.

 

To grow and prosper and maintain relevancy, we sometimes need a new way of thinking. We must discover a renewed path for Question Time to maintain its relevancy in this century.

 

Australians have a choice between to maintain the status quo and perpetuate the apathy and disillusionment of how Australia's political system operates, or to make genuine changes, which strengthen the connection between elected parliamentarians and constituents.

 

The proposals to reconstruct Question Time won't make it more sexy or entertaining. But the heart of Australian democracy will be better and stronger for it.