The Speaker of the House of Representatives is probably right when he says that it is unrealistic to expect Ministers to actually answer questions in Question Time. He was speaking after last week’s especially unruly sittings of the Parliament. The week saw MPs ejected from the Parliament, unruly behaviour at Question Time on both sides of the House, the Opposition taking innumerable points of order and Government backbenchers asking Ministers Dorothy Dixer questions to which Ministers replied at inordinate length. The voters – or at least those few who have bothered to continue to take an active interest in the doings of Parliament – have been aghast.
Obviously, Ministers are not going to answer embarrassing questions directly or make admissions of folly or inconsistency. Nor should the Speaker force them. The evasiveness of a Minister can be damning enough and if Opposition questions causes that level of discomfort it has done its job. The resulting media reports and follow-ups will enable voters t make their judgment.
However, Mr Andrew appears confused about what the Minister’s role is at Questions Time. Mr Andrew said, “”The obligation is that a minister has to be as fulsome as he can in his answer.” Fulsome means cloyingly insincere or offending by excess. Mr Andrew probably meant “”full”. Even so, it is the “”full” answer which is causing much of the problem with Question Time. Too often Ministers arrange for a government backbencher to ask the classic Dorothy Dixer in the form: “Can the Minister outline to the House what the Government is doing about XYZ and is the Minister aware of any alternative approaches to dealing with XYZ”. This gives the Minister the opportunity to extol the virtues of government policy and attack Opposition policy, adding exactly nothing to the sum total of human knowledge, but having the effect of burning up precious time in Question Time during which the Opposition would otherwise ask more penetrating questions.
Mr Andrew has been reluctant to rule such questions out of order, or to rein in waffling answers. The result is an infuriated Opposition that resorts to appeals to standing orders and personal abuse to which the Government responds in kind. It is not vigorous debate, but a rowdy expression of showmanship – perhaps made worse by the contest for leadership aspiration by the Liberals Peter Costello and Tony Abbott.
Oppositions usually promise to improve parliamentary standards. John Howard did it in the lead-up to the 1996 election. Nothing has obviously come of it. Mr Howard promised a more independent speaker. Only the naïve would imagine that meant a genuinely independent Speaker. All Mr Howard meant was a Speaker more independent that Labor’s Speaker who was seen by the Coalition as under the Prime Minister’s thumb.
Early on, Mr Andrew was seen as slight more independent – he allowed Opposition supplementary questions. No more.
With only 150 Members and very tight elections, it is difficult to see the British system of an independent Speaker emerging. In Britain the major parties take it in turns of supplying a Speaker (irrespective of who is in power) and once elected, the Speaker resigns from his or her political party. The Speaker is not challenged at election time. Britain has 630 MPs, so one MP will not matter a great deal in a party’s fortunes. In Australia a single seat could determine government.
So the answer must lie in reforming present procedures – and limiting the time for questions and answers would be a good start. It would prevent waffling policy speeches.
And it would help if Mr Andrew spent less concern about the rules for photographers taking pictures of misbehaving MPs (as he did last year) and more about shaming MPs in better behaviour.