Mr DICK (Oxley) (10:06): I also want to rise briefly to reflect on the work of the Procedure Committee and
in particular the work of the inquiry into the practices and procedures relating to question time. I think it's fair
to say that normally the Procedure Committee flies under the radar, but when the committee announced this
inquiry by the first chair, Mr Vasta, the member for Bonner, and ably led by the current chair, Mr van Manen,
the member for Forde, the place lit up. I don't think there is any other issue that probably unites the community
more than views on question time, and I think that's why we received more than 3,000 submissions, feedback
and bits of information. Whilst question time is an important part of the day, reading through the submissions
it's pretty clear that the majority of respondents to our surveys and the feedback on Twitter and Facebook would
like the tone of question time raised.
Our job, as the member for Forde said, is to look in detail at all the comments and suggestions that we've received.
We also want to look into the areas identified, and I really want to see some concrete recommendations that
would improve question time.
Question time was not in practice until about 1950. It was an informal arrangement, and I think in about 1962
it entered into Votes and Proceedings and developed along the way. While it's a feature of our parliament, it's a
relatively new element of our parliament and I think there are areas for improvement. I want to thank the member
for Forde for his constructive and bipartisan way of handling this issue as well as Mr Vasta. I think this is best
tackled when we work together.
I want to note some of the submissions, particularly from our side of the chamber. The Manager of Opposition
Business, in his submission, clearly focused on a new element of the Dorothy Dixer that has emerged into question
time, which is alternative approaches. This is a common theme of our question time, and I think that's where
some of the anger comes from. The Speaker of our parliament can only use the rules in his, or her, toolbox. Mr
Speaker, I want to commend you, as our current Speaker, for doing an excellent job—and I've said that before.
When you look at the 45th and 46th parliaments, the phrase 'alternative approaches' was used 460 times; in the
past sitting fortnight, it was used around 25 times. So there is a pattern there, and I think that is one element that
we can probably develop with some concrete outcomes.
I'm not in the camp that is looking to abolish question time. I do not sit in that category. I do believe that question
time is an appropriate forum for the government of the day to highlight the work that they are doing for the
Australian people. However, equally, and determinedly so, it is the role of whoever sits on this side of the chamber
to use question time to hold the government of the day to account. With a full media, live on television and with
a packed gallery, we should be able to ask questions of the government of the day. As one local student said,
when I was running one of my parliamentary school programs, 'Why isn't it called "answer time"?' I thought
that was a really good suggestion. When you ask questions, you expect answers. I've got my own feedback from
a number of my schools and I'm looking forward to the committee continuing to engage with and listen to the
wider community, particularly young people.
I want to thank committee members—the member for Lalor and Mr Gorman, the member for Perth, on this
side of the chamber, for their constructive and bipartisan approach, and also, of course, other members of the
committee from the government side. Whilst we are not there yet, I'm confident that we will come up with some
concrete changes to make question time more informative, more accurate and, more importantly, involving the
Australian people more.