| House of Representatives Procedure
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 4 Changes to Question Time and committees
As well as increasing opportunities for participation by private Members,
the Agreement for a Better Parliament: Parliamentary Reform (the
Agreement) includes an array of proposals and some of these are non-procedural.
This chapter examines in more detail the application and implications of
procedural changes affecting Question Time and the structure and operation of
Comments are principally based on information and observations from the early
stages of the 43rd Parliament. Therefore they are preliminary and do
not pre-empt conclusions that the Committee may reach after a longer period of
Reforms to Question Time
Question Time is a very public measure of accountability and an
important feature of responsible government. It takes place at 2.00 pm each
sitting Monday to Thursday. As a result of the Agreement, significant
procedural changes to Question Time were adopted by the House at the beginning
of the 43rd Parliament. On introducing the package of reforms, the
Leader of the House observed:
Question time is the public face of the parliament and is
often the Australian community’s only perception of the workings of parliament.
The adversarial nature of question time has thereby contributed to a perception
that parliament is purely combative. The government is committed to ensuring
that question time portrays a more balanced view of the workings of the parliament.
In brief, the changes include amendments to standing orders to prescribe
time limits for questions and answers, a requirement that
answers be ‘directly relevant’ and a limit of one point of order on relevance
for each question. In addition, several informal
arrangements have been implemented. These include provision for a supplementary
question by the Leader of the Opposition or his delegate, the guarantee of a
proportionate share of questions for non-aligned Members, and an undertaking by
Members to minimise the use of notes during questions and answers.
Table 4.1 provides a comparative summary of the key features of Question Time from
the 41st to the 43rd parliaments.
Table 4.1 Comparison of key
features of Question Time
Source: Chamber Research Office statistics
as at 22 December 2010.
Questions without notice
Average duration of Question Time*
1 hour 7 minutes
1 hour 32 minutes
1 hour 23 minutes
Average number of questions per Question Time
Average length of question
Figure not recorded
Average length of response
2 minutes 24 seconds
3 minutes 37 seconds
3 minutes 3 seconds
% of questions asked by government
% of questions asked by opposition
% of questions asked by Independent/ non-aligned Members
Average points of order per Question Time
Figure not recorded
* rounded to nearest full minute.
** average of 19.6 questions if the supplementary
question is included.
Note: Except where indicated, figures
do not include data for supplementary questions.
For the first time, standing orders now impose a time limit on
questions. Questions must not exceed 45 seconds. This has had little impact on
the length of questions by government or opposition Members (see Table 4.2). Standing
orders relating to the content of questions have not changed. The Speaker has
made a number of statements indicating his intention to strictly adhere to the
rules governing questions (standing order 100). The Speaker has also
referred to the nature and content of questions impacting on his ruling on
answers. For example, following a point of order on the content of a supplementary
question, the Speaker stated:
I just indicate, as I have
indicated over the past few weeks, that when we have a question couched in the
terms that this one has been couched in it opens the door very wide on direct
Table 4.2 Average length of
questions without notice – first sitting period of 42nd and 43rd
Autumn 2008 – 42nd Parliament
Spring 2010 – 43rd Parliament
Research Office statistics, 2011.
do not include out of order or supplementary questions.
Time limits on answers have also been introduced for the first time. Time
limits have reduced the average length of answers from 3 minutes 37 seconds in
the previous parliament, to 3 minutes 3 seconds in the first five weeks of the
43rd Parliament. The time limit has had little impact on the length
of answers to opposition Members’ questions. It has had a greater impact on the
long-standing practice of ministers to give longer answers to government
questions than to questions by opposition and non-aligned Members. In the 42nd
Parliament, the average length of answers to questions from government Members was
4 minutes 52 seconds, compared to 2 minutes 23 seconds for non-government
questions. The time limits have resulted in a more balanced distribution of time,
with the average length of answers to government questions now 3 minutes 33
seconds, compared to 2 minutes 34 seconds for answers to questions by
opposition and non-aligned Members.
As noted above, standing orders were changed to require answers to be ‘directly
relevant’ to the question.
Previously, standing orders required that answers be ‘relevant to the
question’. House of
Representatives Practice describes the application of the previous standing
The interpretation of “relevant” has at times been very wide,
with a basic requirement being that an answer must maintain a link to the
substance of the question. In practice the word has been frequently accepted by
the Chair as meaning relevant in some way or relevant in part, rather than
directly or completely relevant.
The interpretation of the new requirement for answers to be ‘directly
relevant’ rests with the Speaker. The Speaker noted that his interpretation of
the intent of the Agreement in strengthening the relevancy requirement was
‘that there be less debate in answers.’
Opposition Members have frequently criticised the broad interpretation
of ‘relevance’, arguing that responses from Ministers are insufficiently
relevant to questions. Repeatedly during the 43rd Parliament, the
Speaker has expressed his regret that the changes did not apply the same rules
to answers as to questions:
Ad nauseam, I have suggested that the same standing order
should apply to answers as applies to the questions. It would have been a
much better solution than “directly relevant”. It would have meant that
question time is not about the debate; you can have the debate on
other occasions. I am happy to entertain discussions about that, but I
am also of a mind that the amount of banter that goes on—I agree, from both
sides of the chamber—could well be reduced, and question time could revert—if
it has ever been—to an occasion when it has been about the discussion and
debate on the matters of ideas rather than personalities. I would agree that
the amount of debate that is in the answers is a big part of the problem that
any occupant of the chair confronts. Something which I have been consistent on
is that I cannot fathom why the House does not contemplate applying the same
rules to the answers as it does to the questions.
The Manager of Opposition Business on behalf of the Coalition indicated
support for extending the same requirements to answers.
In the past, oppositions have typically raised numerous points of order
on relevance, often more than once in relation to a single answer. Criticisms
of this included its tendency to be disruptive and to be used to point score. Standing
orders were amended to limit points of order on relevance to one per question. The
average number of points of order during Question Time has reduced from 10.7 in
the 42nd Parliament, to 7.4 in the first sitting period of the 43rd
Parliament. The Coalition suggested
the entitlement to a single point of order on relevance per question has become
an issue because the ‘direct relevance’ change has not had the desired effect:
Once the point of order has been made Ministers are
increasingly attempting to answer on a point scoring tangent in full knowledge
that there is little recourse available to the Opposition.
A further proposal made under the Agreement is for the Leader of the
Opposition or his delegate to have the option of asking one supplementary
question each Question Time to clarify an answer. Although already provided for
in the standing orders, supplementary questions
have not been asked during Question Time since 1998.
With no recent practice to refer to, and only limited guidance from the
Agreement and the standing orders, there was some initial confusion regarding implementation.
In response to this, the Speaker stated:
I want to take this opportunity to let the House know of my
position on supplementary questions. I will apply the following criteria: they
need not be asked by the member who has asked the original question and may be
asked either by the Leader of the Opposition or a member who appears to have
been delegated by the Leader of the Opposition to ask the question, and I note
that a supplementary question may be asked by a member other than the member
who has asked the original question in a number of other jurisdictions; they
should not contain any preamble; and they must arise out of, and refer to, the
answer that has been given to the original question.
Subsequently the Speaker provided further clarification after an attempt
by the Shadow Treasurer to ask the Treasurer a supplementary question to a
question by a government Member. The Speaker advised that while other
comparable jurisdictions have accommodated supplementary questions to questions
asked by the other side of the House, he would not allow it at this stage. He
added that the House may later consider the matter further. The Speaker also
advised that another opportunity to ask a supplementary question would not be
granted where an earlier attempt has been ruled out of order.
The Agreement specifies that a ‘proportionate share’ of questions be
allocated to non-aligned Members. This reflects a commitment to ensure these Members
are given an equitable share of opportunities. In line with the long-standing
practice that the allocation of the call during Question Time is an informal
matter, standing orders were not amended to incorporate this.
For most of the 42nd Parliament, there were three non-aligned
Members, making up 2% of all Members. Data show that the non-aligned
Members asked 2% of questions without notice, a figure proportionate to their
number. In the 43rd
Parliament, the number of Members considered non-aligned increased to six, making
up 4% of all Members. In the first session of
the 43rd Parliament they asked 5.1% of all questions.
The Agreement also provides that the order in which non-aligned Members
are given the call during Question Time should be taken into account. The
Leader of the House advised that an agreement had been made between the government
and the Australian Greens Party, to provide a ‘fixed and fair’ allocation of
questions to non-aligned Members:
During each question time, after five questions have been
asked and answered, the call would ordinarily be given to a government member
to ask the sixth question. In order to ensure that the commitment in the
agreement is implemented in full, if at that point, that is, after the fifth
question, a non-aligned Member rises to seek the call, the Chief Government
Whip has asked that no government member seek the call.
This allows for a non-aligned Member to ask a question when a government
Member would normally be given the call. Previously, a non-aligned Member
typically asked a question in place of an opposition Member.
Another element of the Agreement (implemented informally) related to the
preference for Members not to use notes during questions and answers. This is
intended to limit prepared statements being read during Question Time, while
recognising that at times, notes may be needed to provide the House with the
best possible information. The intention of the reform is to bring greater
spontaneity to Question Time, and result in answers being related more directly
to questions. The extent to which this arrangement has been implemented is difficult
to measure. While acknowledging that some time may be needed, the Speaker
indicated to the House his intention to address this issue.
The Committee concludes that Question Time appeared more efficient in
the initial five weeks. Compared to the 42nd Parliament, the average
length of Question Time decreased, while the average number of questions
increased from 18.6 to 19.6 including supplementary questions which were
allowed in 17 of the 18 Question Times. The number of points of order was lower
compared to the last parliament. Answers were shorter and the historical
discrepancy between length of answers to government and opposition questions
was reduced. Independent and minor party Members had the opportunity to ask a
greater proportion of questions.
The Committee notes that these measures are not an indication of the effectiveness
of Question Time, but are still an important indicator of efficiency. The
Committee will monitor them and may seek evidence on the potential for further
The Committee agrees that for the reforms to be effective in reducing
the combative nature of Question Time, a cultural change will need to take
place within the House. The Speaker emphasised this:
…it will not only take a change of standing orders but a
change of culture in the whole House to bring about the type of question time
and proceedings in this place that many outside would like to see.
Since the opening of the 43rd Parliament, a number of Members
have supported this view, acknowledging the importance of cultural change to
the successful reform of parliament, including Question Time.
On the basis of early indications, the Committee is cautiously optimistic that
the reforms can bring some change that will limit scope for argument and better
promote questions and answers that are concise and to the point.
The Speaker has given some indications of his intentions within the
standing orders – in particular to limit the debate and argument in questions –
and his clear guidance that where a question does contain debate and argument,
it opens the door for a wide ranging answer. The Committee notes the Speaker’s
preference to amend standing orders to apply the same rules to questions and
The Committee will monitor Question Time to see how the implementation
of the new standing orders plays out in coming sitting weeks before considering
the matter again in its next report on the implementation of the procedural
Changes to the system of House committees
An important feature of House committee work has been the generally
non-partisan approach of Members, working cooperatively to achieve consensus.
However, while the valuable work of committees is appreciated by the Members who
serve on them, it seems to go largely unrecognised by the wider community and
this has unfortunate implications for the status of the House (and parliament)
as one of the principal institutions of the Australian democratic system.
The committee system is sometimes subject to criticism, including
occasional perceptions of lack of independence and slow responses by government
to committee reports.
Proposals in the Agreement to strengthen and improve the House committee
- rationalising the
number of committees and reducing their membership;
opportunities for the participation of supplementary members;
- altering chairing
arrangements for the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit;
- referring bills
requiring additional scrutiny (as determined by the Selection Committee);
- enabling committee
chairs and deputy chairs to make statements in the House about committee
- encouraging timely
government responses to committee reports.
Implementation of these proposals has seen the number of general purpose
standing committees reduced from 12 in the previous parliament to nine.
Membership of each committee is still structured to reflect the party
membership of the House. The number of positions per committee has also been
reduced from 10 permanent members (six government and four non-government
members) in the 42nd Parliament to seven permanent members (four government
and three non-government members) in the 43rd Parliament.
The principal purpose of reducing the number and size of committees is to allow
Members to dedicate more time to the committee or committees on which they
In the 42nd Parliament there were 256 positions
on House and joint committees to be filled by 115 eligible Members.
Most eligible Members were therefore required to serve on two or three
committees, with some serving on as many as four. Following the reforms there
are 230 positions on House and joint
committees and 119 eligible Members. A comparison of the distribution
of Committee positions among Members for the 42nd and 43rd
parliaments is shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 Distribution of committee positions among
Members in the 42nd and 43rd Parliaments
| 42nd Parliament
|| 43rd Parliament
Research Office statistics, February 2011.
Although the number of permanent positions on general purpose standing
committees has been reduced in the 43rd Parliament, standing orders now
allow for up to four supplementary members (two government and two
non-government or non-aligned members) per inquiry.
This facilitates participation by Members in inquiries of particular interest
to them, without the need to seek permanent appointment. In contrast to earlier
parliaments, even at an early stage
of the 43rd Parliament, supplementary members have been appointed
for four inquiries.
Previously, standing orders provided for committee chairs to be drawn
from government committee members and, although not specified, the position of
deputy chair has been filled by a non-government member by convention.
However, the Agreement provides specifically for the Joint Committee of Public
Accounts and Audit to be chaired by a non-government Member. In addition, the
amended standing orders allow for the Standing Committee on Regional Australia
to be chaired by a non-government Member. Both committees have appointed
non-aligned Members as chair.
The Agreement proposes that the Selection Committee refer bills it
considers to be controversial or needing additional debate to the relevant
standing or joint committee for inquiry prior to debate in the House. Historically
under standing order 215, House standing committees and joint committees have been
able to inquire into and report on bills and pre-legislative proposals, if referred
to them by the House or relevant Minister. But this has not been a significant
aspect of House committee work. In the 42nd
Parliament only six legislative inquiries were undertaken by House and joint
committees. Of these, four were by joint committees and two by House
committees. As at 4 March 2011, the Selection Committee has referred seven
bills, comprising five government bills and two private Members’ bills, to
House committees for inquiry. It is difficult to predict
the frequency with which the Selection Committee will refer bills to House and
joint committees, but early indications are that referrals will increase,
particularly as only one member of the Committee is needed to effect this.
Traditionally committees have reported in the House only at the conclusion
of an inquiry, when the report is presented. To raise the profile of committee
work, and to promote interest in new inquiries, the Agreement proposed that
committee chairs and deputy chairs be able to make statements informing the
House about inquiry matters during private Members’ business time.
This opportunity was used for the first time on 22 November 2010 by the
Chair and Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia, in
relation to the inquiry into the socio-economic impact of the proposed MurrayDarling basin plan. As
at 4 March 2011, 13 statements have been made, relating to eight inquiries.
Although not bound under standing orders, since 1983 successive governments
have undertaken to respond to committee reports within a three month period. Historically,
government responses have rarely been received within this timeframe, and in
some cases reports have not been responded to at all.
To encourage more timely government responses, early in the 43rd
Parliament the House passed a resolution requiring Ministerial explanations if
government responses are not received in a six month timeframe.
With the first committee reports of the 43rd Parliament presented in
late November 2010, government responses will be due by late May 2011. The
effectiveness of the resolution will be established as the parliament
Many of the proposals for reform to the House committee system have been
informed by recommendations made by the Committee.
The main aims of these reforms are to strengthen the House committee system by
making it more workable for Members, increase committee independence and government
responsiveness, and to make committees more responsive to community
expectations. Initial observations suggest a measure of success but the
Committee is yet to receive detailed feedback on these reforms and so its
comments are tentative and will be expanded upon in its next report.
Since the commencement of the modern committee system in 1987, there
have been slight variations in subject coverage. These have often reflected
changing government priorities and have mirrored government portfolio
restructures and associated departmental changes. As a result of the current
reforms, the House standing committees now have a stronger focus on regional
issues, presumably an outcome of negotiations with Independent Members. Nevertheless,
when considered in combination with the existing joint committees, the House
committee system still provides sufficient subject area coverage to support
inquiries into all domains of government policy and administration. Whether
this current structure is fully optimised, or whether it would benefit from
further refinements, is a matter of conjecture. The Committee looks forward to
receiving specific feedback on this issue.
The effects of having fewer and smaller House standing committees and
changes to chairing arrangements on their workability also remain to be
Although the work of House committees has generally been characterised
by a cooperative non-partisan approach, changes to the composition of
committees and to chairing arrangements for some committees clearly have
implications for decision making. Notably, when a non-aligned Member is
appointed to a general purpose standing committee, the membership increases from
seven to eight members; that is four government members, three non-government
members and one non-aligned member. The balance of power
favours the non-aligned member. Where a committee is chaired by a non-aligned
member, in circumstances of an even division in the committee, the chair will
have the casting vote. Although optimistic that the culture of cooperation and
non-partisanship will persist in the work of committees, the Committee will
The Committee has observed an encouraging response from Members to
increased opportunities for the appointment of supplementary members for
specific inquiries. As noted, already in the 43rd Parliament seven
Members have taken advantage of the opportunities to participate in four inquiries
as supplementary members.
The role of the Selection Committee in referring bills to committees for
inquiry, and the resulting increase in activity in this area, is encouraging. The
Committee recognises the potential for committee consideration to enhance the
legislative process by recommending amendments to improve bills before
consideration by the House. The Committee has not received specific feedback
about this aspect of the role of the Selection Committee and will continue to
monitor the mechanism for referral and the time taken to complete bills
The new opportunity for chairs and deputy chairs to make statements to the
House on committee activities has already been referred to.
Raising awareness of committee activities and improving the parliament’s
relationship with the public by enhancing dialogue between committees and the
wider community are both addressed in the Agreement. Mechanisms to enhance
relationships with the public by improving dialogue have highlighted the
potential for committees to make more use of new technologies so they become
more accessible, interactive and responsive. There are an increasing number of
examples of committees using new technologies to gather evidence and to engage
with the public. To support the
committees in this evolving technological environment, the Agreement proposes
that the Leader of the House and the Speaker investigate the adequacy of teleconferencing
and videoconferencing with a view to considering any necessary upgrades or
additional facilities to meet current and projected needs.
A review of the powers of committees has also been referred to the Liaison
Committee of Chairs and Deputy Chairs. The Committee looks forward to receiving
information on the outcomes.