For around an hour each parliamentary sitting day, the prime minister and other ministers face a flurry of questions from the opposition and other members of parliament.

It is often here that debate on the issues of the day becomes most heated, and such is the interest from media and others that anyone can watch it live.

As such, Question Time serves a vital function in Australian democracy: it is a highly visible way in which, it is hoped, the government can be held to account. It is also a chance for the opposition to present itself as a viable and desirable alternative government.

But critics see it as increasingly flawed.

On one hand, governments can dodge real accountability by giving non-answers or having their own side ask “Dorothy Dixer” questions – that is, a favourable question to the benefit of an MP’s own party.

On the other, the theatrical and combative tone can shift attention towards personal attacks and cheap point-scoring, turning people off politics. Another concern is an increasing trend that political scientists call “personalisation” or “presidentialisation”. This refers to Australian politics becoming dominated by party leaders at the expense of the rest of their team.

Too much scrutiny on leaders can distract from meaningful policy debate and lead to a destabilising “coup culture” of frequent leadership changes. So, 35 years after Question........

© The Conversation