Yesterday the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure tabled a report entitled Encouraging an interactive Chamber. The report acknowledged that "debates in the House of Representatives can be dull, characterised by lengthy speeches to an almost empty chamber" and sought to look at "ways of enlivening debates on legislation and other methods of encouraging an interactive chamber". The three recommendations of the report centre on allowing interventions after the first 15 minutes of each second reading speech in the Chamber. However, the Committee also suggested that shorter speeches, less reading of speeches and more interaction would make the proceedings more engaging and therefore more meaningful. The Committee also briefly considered the use of audio-visual aids:
The potential use of audio visual aids is also canvassed in the Clerk’s submission. It is noted that in a number of Parliaments Members have access to technology such as Powerpoint to supplement their speeches, and that the House may at some stage need to consider such concepts. The Clerk observes that the use of audio visual materials adds another dimension to presentations and may appeal to younger people observing proceedings, but also notes that these technologies are typically used by a person addressing an audience rather than by people engaged in a debate.
Perhaps there is an argument for permitting the use of PowerPoint, but usually PowerPoint does very little to improve the quality of the presentation and it most certainly discourages interaction. This because when using PowerPoint most presenters tend to read off the slides and most listeners tend to focus on the graphics intead of engaging with what the presenter is actually saying. Also, I find the idea that young people will start watching the House of Representatives if they use PowerPoint absolutely laughable. Although young people may be used to PowerPoint, they are still very much associated with boring lectures.
The Committee also looks at the practice of other Chambers around the world. While I can see merit in considering other parliaments, I do feel that there was no need for a "study tour of parliaments in the Unted Kingdom and France". What an extraordinary waste of money ...
