Is reconstructing question time a question of time?

The expectation is the Speaker remains impartial however the Australian experience reveals otherwise. In the current Parliament, Speaker Bronwyn Bishop has been accused of incompetence by misinterpreting rules, seldom ruling against the Government, in biases toward the sitting Government, criticised for attending party room meetings, and holding Liberal Party fundraising functions in the Speaker's offices.

At one stage, Bishop ejected around 100 Labor Opposition Members from the chamber to the Government's nil. The Opposition ultimately introduced a no-confidence motion against the Speaker,the first against a Speaker since 1949. While the motion expectedly failed along party lines, it highlights the need to re-evaluate the role of Speaker.

At a minimum, a remedy is for the Australian Parliament to follow the UK model, or take the next step and legislate that a Member selected as Speaker must relinquish all party loyalties, not attend party room meetings or political fundraising activities in order to present some semblance of political impartiality.

An alternative approach is for the Speaker to be chosen by the voting public from the list of nominated candidates for Speaker on the ballot paper at election time. This will help ensure greater independence by the Speaker and who is now more directly accountable to the public.

Proposal 2 - Structure of Question Time:The standard practice is questions are without notice from the Opposition benches, followed by a supplementary question, with alternating 'Dorothy Dix' questions from Government backbenchers.

Due to the nature of Question Time, Ministers cannot totally predict the questions to be asked by Opposition Members. Ministers and their staff normally anticipate the type of questions to be asked based on the issues of the day and potentially emerging issues. This can result in an inefficient use of time and resources.

An alternative approach is to place Opposition questions on notice and for responses to be tabled and presented at the next Question Time sitting. This permits questions to be more detailed, probing and allows Ministers to prepare responses which are more thorough, informative, and substantive.

Further, serious consideration should be given in permitting questions on notice from the Government to the Opposition front benches in Question Time. Oppositions must also be held to account and must demonstrate they are a viable alternative Government.

This will assist the voting public in gaining greater clarity on policy positions, and not tripping into Government on a policy platform of one sentence slogans and negativity.

Proposal 3 - 'Dorothy Dix' Questions: Following on from the previous proposal, and in what is another out-dated tradition, Ministers organise for Government backbenchers to ask pre-arranged questions (i.e. Dorothy Dixer) on specific issues. This provides a Government backbencher with an opportunity to briefly be in the public spotlight, a Minister to promote the Government, communicate any perceived successes on policy, and score political points.

To improve the quality of questions in Question Time, consideration should be given to not permitting pre-arranged questions from Government backbenchers to a Minister. This ensures more questions that challenge and scrutinise the sitting Government as well as Opposition parties, and help raise the standard of accountability and transparency in Parliament.

Proposal 4 - Removal of Members:The Speaker can remove or suspend a Member from the House where they have breached the rules or committed a serious conduct violation.