Question Time Survey My name is Ron Holmes and I live in the seat of Page held by the National MP Kevin Hogan. I am retired and one of my interests is following Parliament including Question Time. Over time I have become increasingly disheartened by how Question Time has degraded to a rabble with little or no benefit to the Australian people. Question Time must be overhauled so that it once again meets its purpose of demonstrating the accountability and transparency of the sitting Government. My submission is in question/answer format as per the survey. 1. Do you think the House of Representatives should change how question time operates? Yes No Please tell us why. The purpose of question time is to allocate time for the Government to demonstrate their accountability and transparency to the people of Australia. In its current form it is neither. I acknowledge existing rules, precedents and tradition, but: 1. Dorothy Dixer's asked by the Government of itself are a FARCE. They are just the Government's spin on issues selected by themselves and are as such a waste of time. See Question 6. 2. The current rules around the answering (or not answering) of questions lets the Government avoid difficult questions which are in the public interest (transparency and accountability). Consequently the rules need a complete overhaul. For example the rules around relevance, where currently answers only need to be remotely on the topic, need to be reviewed. 3. When a Minister ignores the direction of the Speaker he/she should be disciplined. Currently they just flaunt direction and seemingly get away with it. 4. The Speaker should be a bipartisan appointment. 5. The Government should answer questions that have been placed on the Notice Board. 6. With regard to 'suspension of standing orders’ motions, the shutting down of debate with ‘Be no longer heard’ counter motions should be banned unless the Speaker determines that the motion being shut down is frivolous or in some other way not allowed. The government must allow such motions to be put and debated. 7. When a 'point of order' (of relevance) is coming, the Prime Minister conveniently indicates to the Speaker that he has concluded his answer and the 'point of order' is not heard. The ‘point of order’ should be heard and if valid the prime Minister should be directed to continue his answer and be relevant. 8. Investigate ways of taking the onus from the Speaker to maintain order in the chamber. It is an onerous position that is not helped by overt disruption from both sides. A ‘Code of Conduct’ policed by a Deputy to the Speaker may take some of the onus from the Speaker. This code should rule out the use of ‘Ridicule’ by either side. 9. See answers below for more. 2. Currently question time usually lasts around 70 minutes. Please indicate which statement best reflects your views: This is about the right amount of time There should be less time for question time There should be more time for question time Unsure Please add further comment if you wish: The time taken for Statements on 'indulgence’ should not be counted within the time allocation for question time. Suspension motions (although often necessary) also waste time. If the Government actually answered questions then objections for ‘relevance' and ‘suspension' motions would reduce considerably. 3. Currently opposition Members have 30 seconds to ask a question. Please indicate which statement best reflects your views: This is the right amount of time Opposition Members should have less time than this per question Opposition Members should have more time than this per question Unsure Please add further comment if you wish: An increase would allow time for more argument in the question which may not be desirable. 4. Currently cross-bench Members have 45 seconds to ask a question. Please indicate which statement best reflects your views: This is the right amount of time Cross-bench Members should have less time than this per question Cross-bench Members should have more time than this per question Unsure Please add further comment if you wish: 5. Currently Ministers have three minutes to answer a question. Please indicate which statement best reflects your views: This is the right amount of time Ministers should have less time than this to answer Ministers should have more time than this to answer Unsure Please add further comment if you wish: Make the answering of questions more like a formal debate where time is allowed for some relevant background but then the actual question must be addressed. Have the Clerk ring a bell at say 2 minutes to indicate the end of background and start of actual answer. If a short curt answer is all that is offered (including a yes or no) then time-limited supplementary questions should be allowed. This change may actually result in questions being answered and limit the need for repeat questions. 6. Should there be restrictions on or changes to the practice of asking ‘Dorothy Dix’ questions? Please indicate which statement best reflects your views: Retain current practice in relation to ‘Dorothy Dix’ style questions. Amend how 'Dorothy Dix' questions can be asked. Remove the ability to ask ‘Dorothy Dix’ style questions. Unsure As I answered at Question 1: Dorothy Dixer's asked by the Government of itself are a FARCE. They are NOT 'Questions without Notice'. They are just the Government's spin on issues selected by themselves, patting themselves on the back, ridiculing the opposition etc. They are of NO value and as such are a waste of the Australian Public’s time. If the Government has something of importance to report to the Australian public then allow a time- limited period at the start of question time for this. Allow the Leader of the Opposition the right of reply also time limited. Allow the Prime Minister, at any time, to make a statement (of importance) to the Australian public and allow the Leader of the Opposition the right of reply. 7. Who should be able to ask questions? Non-government Members Government Members Government and non-government Members 8. Please add further comment or specify any others who should be able to ask questions if you wish: A limited number of vetted ‘Questions with Notice’, from the Gallery, could be considered. 9. What would you like the House to accomplish through question time? 1. TRANSPARENCY. 2. Government ACCOUNTABILITY. 3. The implementation of a ‘Code of Conduct’ that seeks to have members treat each other with a degree of mutual respect and does away with ridicule. Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on this very important, but currently abused, part of Government. Ron Holmes.