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

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.