Georgie Morell

Share this:

It’s not a media Interview. Why most witnesses get parliamentary hearings wrong

Most senior leaders and communications professionals who’ve done plenty of media training walk into a parliamentary hearing feeling quietly confident. They know how to handle a tough question. They’ve practised their bridging technique. They understand the value of a tight key message. Then the committee starts asking questions, and the rules they’ve relied on don’t apply anymore. Parliamentary hearings, whether before a parliamentary committee or in Senate Estimates, share a surface resemblance to a media interview. There’s a microphone. There’s scrutiny. Your words matter. But the similarities end there, and the differences can catch even experienced communicators badly off guard.

The record is different. Completely different

In a media interview, an awkward pause typically gets edited out. A clunky answer gets tightened. A misstatement can sometimes be corrected before a story goes to air. The media controls what makes the final cut.

In a parliamentary hearing, there is no editing. Every word is captured verbatim in Hansard, the official parliamentary transcript, and published online, permanently. If you misspeak, you can’t correct it informally; you must submit a formal written correction to the committee. If your answer today contradicts a public statement that you made six months ago, that inconsistency is now on the parliamentary record for anyone to find.

This isn’t just a procedural difference. It changes how you need to prepare, what you can and can’t say, and how you handle the moment when you genuinely don’t know something.

The stakes are higher than most people realise

Here’s the part that surprises people most in our training sessions: parliamentary hearings come with legal consequences that a media interview simply does not.
Committees have the power to summon witnesses and compel the production of documents. Refusing to attend, failing to comply, or most seriously deliberately misleading a committee can constitute contempt of Parliament. That is not a reputational problem. It is a legal one.

At the same time, evidence given in hearings is protected by parliamentary privilege, which means witnesses can speak candidly without fear of defamation proceedings, provided what they say is relevant to the inquiry. Understanding when that protection applies, and when it doesn’t, is essential for anyone advising an organisation on how to engage.

The stakes cut both ways. A hearing can be one of the most powerful platforms your organisation ever has; a chance to put evidence on the official parliamentary record, to influence a committee report, and to shape the government’s policy response.

Poor preparation can squander that opportunity, or worse, create lasting reputational damage that lives in the Hansard record long after the hearing ends.

The questioning dynamic is entirely different

In a media interview, you’re generally dealing with one journalist. You can bridge away from a question you don’t want to answer. You can steer the conversation with a strong key message.

In a parliamentary hearing, every member of the committee, government and opposition, gets a turn to question you. The Chair controls the session, determines the order, and manages time. Bridging is not off the table, but committees are experienced at recognising evasion, and they will follow up. The sequence of questions can shift direction entirely from one MP to the next, and there’s no way to predict which line of inquiry will surface.

Experienced witnesses know that the most important skill isn’t persuasion. It’s precision. Knowing what falls within your remit. Knowing what to take on notice rather than answer under pressure. Knowing how to hold a position calmly when a committee member pushes back.

Preparation is the only protection

None of this is meant to be alarmist. Parliamentary hearings, when handled well, are an extraordinary opportunity. But the preparation required is fundamentally different from media training, and conflating the two is a mistake we see organisations make regularly.

Effective preparation for a parliamentary hearing means understanding the terms of reference inside and out. It means anticipating the questions government members will ask and the very different questions opposition members are likely to raise. It means preparing an opening statement that frames your key messages clearly from the outset. It means briefing your spokesperson on the political dynamics of the committee, not just the subject matter.

And it means being genuinely comfortable with the five words that protect witnesses more than any key message ever will: “I’ll take that on notice.”

At Spokesperson Media Training, we work with organisations preparing to appear before parliamentary committees and Senate Estimates hearings at state and federal levels. Our training replicates the hearing environment as closely as possible, including the questioning dynamics, the Hansard discipline, and the moments when your spokesperson needs to make a call in real time, on the record.

If your organisation has an upcoming hearing, or if you want to make sure your team is ready before the summons arrives, we’d welcome the conversation.


Spokesperson Media Training provides specialist media and communications training for executives, public affairs professionals, and organisational spokespersons. Our parliamentary inquiry and Senate Estimates programs are available as bespoke workshops or scheduled courses

Signup to our Newsletter

Full of helpful resources for executives and teams, as well as the latest news and events from SMT.