No, she is not. She's a pundit, or someone who has studied it. She says:
Question time in its contemporary manifestation symbolises everything that's wrong with political discussion in Australia—an exchange of manufactured sound bites and confected television “moments” signifying nothing at all. It is at once uncomfortably aggressive, spiteful and gladiatorial, and completely soporific.
I can only assume that Ms. Murphy at some point went to university, because I don't think anybody uses the word “soporific” all that often without prior extensive post-secondary education.
I think it's a good point, and question time, at times, turns into that. But never doubt the value of question period. I know that a lot of people would like to change the Standing Orders around how question period is dealt with, to improve it. Some people say it doesn't serve any purpose, but it's the only opportunity we have. How many questions do we really get in per day as the opposition? It's the only time we can have the ministers there directly to ask them questions. There are ministers who have been forced to apologize over the last hundred years, to resign. It's also an opportunity for the opposition to discover contradictions among ministers, different viewpoints, because as much as the executive and the cabinet members are obliged by cabinet solidarity to vote together, I refuse to believe they all think alike, that there's groupthink suddenly, that you get the “honourable” title in front of your name and you cease to think. I refuse to believe that happens.
There have been members of Parliament who were members of the executive, who have resigned on principle, whether we agree or disagree with it. There's a member of our caucus, the Honourable Michael Chong, who resigned on a matter of principle. I remember that because I was a staffer in this building when it happened. I think he did it for all the right reasons. I may not have agreed with it, but he did it for the right reasons. So there is no groupthink amongst the cabinet, but question period is the only time we have to really see what members of the cabinet are thinking and what the prime minister thinks, and whether what he or she says agrees with the cabinet members. It's the only opportunity we have.
I worked at the Alberta legislature for the minister of finance, where there was question period. Now, this was in Alberta during the 44-year reign of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. A great many of the questions were being asked by members of the Progressive Conservative Party to their own members in what's called the softball lob. There we have a question and up to two supplementals that we do, and I would say they serve no real purpose. The model we have here is not actually all that bad.
There are some things that I would change. Again, some of this is mentioned here about changing the way we do question period. But the standing order rule for relevance and repetition is suspended during question period. So a minister can get up and repeat their line, whatever that line is. Having worked for a minister, the Minister of National Defence—again, this is my background—I participated in the building of the binder every single morning. The larger your department, the more you have to remember, and that's always the great difficulty.