On the day Ian Duncan Smith was deposed as Tory Leader, the following question was asked during Prime Minister’s Question Time in the British House of Commons:
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): In view of the reviewed interest in crime figures, especially on the Tory Benches, will my Right Honourable friend consider whether back-stabbing should become a criminal offence?
Even the outgoing Tory leader joined in the laughter.
Advertisement
In the Australia's House of Representatives under Speaker The Hon. Neil Andrew, such a question would probably be ruled out of order!
A week later, on the new Tory Leader’s first PM’s Question Time, Tony Blair said he had a dossier on Michael Howard’s record as a Minister in past Tory Governments.
When asking his next question, Mr Howard – a much better parliamentary performer than his Australian namesake – caused laughter on both sides when he prefaced the question with the comment that he has a dossier on Tony Blair’s record “and it did not even need to be sexed up”.
Under Speaker Andrew, that would most certainly have been ruled out of order, and Mr Howard would have been admonished like an errant schoolboy.
Question time in the House of Representatives has never been worse – thanks to Speaker Andrew's rigid interpretation of the standing order that interruptions are disorderly.
As a result, every time even a funny interjection is made, he calls “Order”” and warns the “offending” member. Sometimes he sits or stands there in an embarrassing silence for what seems an eternity.
Advertisement
If a Minister dares respond to an interjection, he is likely to be reprimanded as well.
This is a nonsense approach that reflects poorly on the Speaker - and, frankly, on the government that tolerates it.
Interjections have been an essential part of the House of Representatives debates since 1901. Sir Robert Menzies would have been lost without them. Those who served with him have told me he became frustrated when his regular interjectors were absent or silent!
Indeed, one of the wittiest interjections in the House came during a Menzies answer – at a time when he was at the zenith of his career, and unchallenged as a parliamentary performer.
Sir Robert was telling the House how “popular” his government was with the workers, and illustrated the claim by telling the House that a truck driver wearing a blue singlet had pulled up beside his official car in Melbourne, wound the window down and shouted “good on you Bob!”
Before Menzies could sit down, the Member for Sydney, Jim Cope, interjected: “He should have been charged with drink driving.”
The House broke into laughter – and Menzies laughed loudest of all!
Such an event simply could not happen under the current regime.
House of Representatives Practice, which draws on rulings by Speakers since 1901, and on House of Commons Practice and Erskine May, the Parliamentary Bible, makes it very clear that interjections should not be outlawed completely as this extract (p486) confirms:
It may be accepted that, as the House is a place of thrust and parry, the Chair need not necessarily intervene in the ordinary course of debate when an interjection is made.
What a pity Speaker Andrew does not follow that common-sense approach, one which is followed in the House of Commons and most Parliaments I have observed, including the Legislative Assembly of Queensland.
We live in an era in which public confidence in parliament, and even democracy itself, has never been lower.
Robust debate – and witty or telling interjections – will help restore confidence, not further erode it. It need not degenerate into a rabble – but it needs to be recognised as a place of thrust and parry, and the sooner the better.
In more than 40 years observing parliament, I have seen and heard some good speakers and some dreadful ones. Sir Billy Mackie Snedden (1975-83), Sir William John Aston (1966-1972), and the last Labor Speaker, Stephen Martin, were the better ones, the latter partly because he presided over Parliament in the Keating era and managed to do so with admirable fairness!
Nothing better illustrates how dull and boring question time has become than does the fact that the marginal-seat government MPs sitting on “death row” – apparently to maximise their exposure to their electorates – spend most of question time tapping away on laptops!
In “the good old days”, question time was not to be missed. While still at primary school I used to tune into the ABC’s rebroadcast of question time and marvel at the wit and humour of Menzies, Calwell, Killen, Whitlam and Daly.
When I watch question time today I feel like reaching into the screen and throttling Mr Speaker! And that is probably quite unfair as he is undoubtedly doing what he believes to be right.
The electoral redistribution commissioners have ensured that Speaker Andrew will not be Speaker in the next Parliament.
It is not a matter of trying to get an “independent” Speaker but simply getting one who applies common sense, as well as long-established rich parliamentary practice and tradition, and not just rigid standing orders!
We don’t need to descend to fist-fighting on the floor, as is common in the Parliaments of Taiwan and South Korea! We don’t need the boringly scripted US House of Representatives. What we need is a Parliament that is alive and well, robust and challenging, for government and opposition alike.
The sooner the House of Representatives draws on its wonderful traditions, and consigns to history a current practice that can only further erode the poor standing of our national legislature, the better.