It's not Hoyle, but it's not complete havoc either

To the casual observer Question Time in the House of Representatives is senseless.

It's a bit like watching a game of American Football, or what we call gridiron.

We have absolutely no idea of the rules so everything the players do on field is meaningless.

It's as if the game is being played for the sole purpose of the enjoyment of the players.

As it is with the House of Reps. Question Time in the House does nothing more than make its television audience angry and irritated.

One need look no further than the Twitter #qt hashtag to find supporting evidence.

@nancycato! "young neighbour just yelled at me - angrily. I could tell because I see it often on #QT

@gaycarboys "we must all watch #QT now and scream if we think abbott is doing another runner.

@myklcaln "is Anna Burke starting #QT with a prayer or a starter's pistol today?"

@prronto "I think a speaker should be elected by the people – and be issued with a Colt Peacemaker."

@cargema "what is this parliament? Are we attending a play?"

What we perceive is that the traditional parliamentary idea of persuasive argument, backed by reputation, status and trust has vanished from the House and with it the prestige of the parliament as the premier social institution.

We think the House and particularly Question Time has been reduced to a series of disruptive, almost violent attacks back and forth across the chamber.

It is a new engagement in which reputation, status, prestige and trust have been distilled to the point of being meaningless.

Some commentators with vested interests argue the nature of the new engagement is debasing the institution itself.

But this is not an accurate observation. Sense can be made of the parliament and meaning found in question time if we understand strategy and tactics.

In this both the government and the opposition are changing the nature of the political engagement within parliament but not the parliament itself.

The parliament remains beyond reproach at the top of the social institution hierarchy.

What is going on is still the same – legislation is being tabled, debated and passed or rejected; policies are being conceptualised; the money supply is guaranteed.

What has changed is the nature of the engagement between both sides and the perception that the important element of trust has been devalued.

Trust assists people in the process of accepting arguments. What we see in the Australian House of Representatives is misunderstood in terms of trust.

Both sides are playing an interesting political strategy game. For the casual observer it is a game that has no rules and the players, like rugby league players throwing F-bombs at the ref, appear to have descended into the muck.

If, however, you read the revised rulebook and look closely at the play - again like the F-bomb chucked at the ref - the muck-like engagement in the House is purely tactical.

It is all about getting the other side to drop the ball; getting the other side to make a forced error.

When this happens the ref will blow it up and there will be a penalty. The penalty count at the end of the game will decide the winner. The end of the game will be the 2013 poll.

For the uninitiated observer, it's as if the ref - the acting speaker Anna Burke - has no control. But this is not the case.

Just as the rugby league five-eighth throws a long blind cut-out pass and trusts the receiver will be in place, in the House the cut-out passes and jinking steps are the same.

The level of trust is relative to the tactics being employed and the speaker is letting the game flow as best it can within the confines of the new engagement.

The new engagement in the House is the same as the new engagement on the rugby league paddock where the increase in volume and colour of the language is designed to un-nerve both the opposition and the referee.

The collateral damage is that it is also un-nerving the electorate and, without the benefit of illumination, may have the effect of attenuating trust in the institution of parliament itself.

The new engagement is a function of the hung parliament and it is proving to be both entertaining and revealing. It would be truly unfortunate if it were to be abandoned in future parliaments in a reversion to paralysing, endless argument.