"I really envy your Question Time," Barack Obama told Julia Gillard the first time they met.

Key points: Parliamentary Committee on Procedures inquiring whether Question Time rules should be changed

Parliamentary Committee on Procedures inquiring whether Question Time rules should be changed Both sides of parliament are considering doing away with "Dorothy Dixer" questions

Both sides of parliament are considering doing away with "Dorothy Dixer" questions Calls for stricter rules of "relevance" for questions, not just answers

Proof, perhaps, that the grass is always greener — even the mottled eucalyptus of the House of Representatives.

Ms Gillard, recounting the conversation years later, revealed she had reflexively asked the then-president if he was "mad", before explaining why many Australians did not share his admiration for the farcical slanging match that dominates sitting days in Canberra.

"He had the good grace at the end of the conversation to say, 'I am mad! That sounds dreadful'," she said.

Defenders of Question Time point out that the Westminster tradition is one of the only systems in the world that subjects ministers, the wielders of executive power, to regular public questioning.

Since regular broadcasts began in 1989 it has brought Parliament's most ferocious debates into the lounge rooms of voters, and produced some of the most famous witticisms in Australian political history.

But parliamentarians are hearing a consistent message from their constituents, and the schoolkids who tour Parliament: Question Time is an embarrassing spectacle that shows partisan politics at its worst.

Liberal chair of the Committee on Procedures, Ross Vasta, says the public expects better behaviour from parliamentarians. ( ABC News )

Now, with public faith in politics at an all-time low, the cross-party Committee on Procedures is holding an inquiry into whether the rules should be changed.

"I think Question Time probably needs to be overhauled," said Ross Vasta, the Liberal MP who chairs the inquiry.

"The feedback we're getting from the public and the school students that visit Parliament House, they say to me that the shouting out and discourtesy is not parliamentarian-like behaviour and they would expect better from us.

"They want us to set an example for the community and I think we have the ability to do that."

And Labor's Manager of Opposition Business, Tony Burke, agreed.

"It's flawed, it's not what it could be," he told 7.30.

"But what it could be is something quite spectacular."

Dorothy Dixers: Is the minister aware of any alternatives?

Liberal backbencher Tony Pasin asks a Dorothy Dixer during Question Time. ( ABC News: Matt Roberts )

Question Time is supposed to give everyone a chance to question ministers about the policies that affect their local constituents. That includes members of the Government's own back bench.

Known as 'Dorothy Dixers', after a US advice columnist rumoured to write her own questions, these softball questions have long been used by governments from both sides as set-ups to spruik their own achievements and attack alternatives offered by the Opposition.

Every now and then a backbencher asks a genuine question about local concerns, or about an area of bipartisanship like mental health.

But most of them are written by the very members of the executive that will answer them, and handed out to backbenchers in a highly coordinated strategy to shape the government message.

"Will the Prime Minister outline how the Morrison Government has demonstrated it is on the side of the Australian people?" the Liberal member for Longman asked in the most recent Question Time in August.

"Have there been any alternative approaches on display?"

The vast majority of dixers end with some version of those words — and they are used for a reason.

They allow the minister to spend most of their answer attacking the Opposition while still meeting the requirement in the Standing Orders to be "directly relevant" to the question.

'I wouldn't be fazed if they went'

Labor's Tony Burke says some of the current Dorothy Dixers are "laughable". ( ABC News )

"When you have people groaning because the question ends with 'are there alternative policies?' — because they know what's going to happen — then there's a problem," Harry Jenkins told 7.30.

As speaker from early 2008 to late 2011, the Labor MP was responsible for maintaining order through the uncertainty of a delicately balanced minority government.

"At its worst it's the kindergarten sandpit," he said.

In 2011, he made an order to stop questions that were obviously just setups for gratuitous political attacks.

"Well, this is a big change in the game," he told the chamber at the time, warning them the judgement would "rule out most of the questions, from both sides".

The peace held for a little while, but Question Time soon returned to form.

Mr Jenkins now says his "futile attempts" were always doomed to fail.

"One of the ways you get a sustainable change is the House decides, not just the person in the chair," he said.

A study of the Hansard from the most recent Question Time reveals dixers take up more than half the time.

There were 21 questions in the last August sitting — one from an independent, 10 from the Opposition and 10 from the Government. But the dixers get the longest answers, while the Opposition questions are batted away.

The inquiry will take submissions from the public over the coming weeks, but the government chair, Mr Vasta, has opened the door to change.

"That's something that we really want to look into," he said.

"I think there are other aspects that will be able to get the government message out rather than just using Dorothy Dixers in the future."

Mr Burke said he believed dixers could be used "more sensibly".

"I wouldn't be fazed if they went," he said.

"What's happened now is we've got to examples that are just laughable."

Can we force them to answer the question?

Harry Jenkins tried to change the rules when he was Speaker, but without much success. ( AAP: Alan Porritt, file photo )

Relevance is a tricky word to define.

"The word relevant, as defined by parliamentary practice, is not found in the dictionary," Mr Jenkins said.

In 2010 the Standing Orders were changed so that answers had to be "directly relevant", not just relevant. This gave the Speaker a little more scope to shut down longwinded tangents.

But in practice it "hasn't really made a difference", Mr Burke conceded.

Mr Vasta agrees that the parties are at a deadlock on relevance.

"We want Question Time to be free-flowing, and information-based," he said.

But neither side is quite sure how to reword the rules.

As manager of opposition business, Mr Burke is the man in charge of Labor's Question Time strategy.

He says a requirement to actually answer the question wouldn't work, because oppositions are motivated to ask questions that paint governments into the corner.

"There will always be ways that oppositions want to frame questions ... as a yes or no," Mr Burke said.

"And in fairness the answers aren't always a yes or no, so you do need some flexibility."

Mr Jenkins has suggested the stricter rules for questions — which say the question must not contain "arguments", "debates", "insults" or "opinions" — should be extended to answers, to encourage a more honest exchange of information.

The committee is also looking at whether modern technology can make Question Time more relevant. Mr Vasta said there could be an app that allowed voters to "tune in and see what your federal member is doing in the chamber".

The Procedures Committee is accepting submissions from the public and parliamentarians, and will ultimately submit a series of recommendations to the House.

A broader public survey will be conducted later in the year, according to the committee's website.

"The last thing I want is for it to be a really well-written document that just sits on the shelf," Mr Vasta said.

"We want it to be implemented, we want it to change."