Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek your assistance in clarifying the accountability of the members for Parkes and Sturt in their capacity as assistant ministers. The designation ‘assistant minister’ appeared not only in prime ministerial media statements issued last month but also in Gazette No. S15, issued on 30 January 2007. I refer you to standing order 98, which clearly rules out questions being asked of parliamentary secretaries but remains silent on the new designation of ‘assistant minister’. I particularly refer you to the comments from the member for Parkes, who stated in a media release that he would be responsible for the implementation of water resources in rural Australia. He therefore would quite clearly be eligible to be asked questions, under standing order 99, which allows for questions being asked if a member is responsible for a particular area of government policy.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for the question. As he has noted, while two members, both of whom he has identified, have assumed the additional titles of ‘assistant minister’, they also continue to have the title of ‘parliamentary secretary’; therefore, under standing order 98, questions cannot be directed to them. However, questions can be directed to the relevant minister.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to table an ABC report entitled Demotion: a blessing in disguise for Cobb, in which he stated: ‘I’m very excited about water being my area of responsibility in the future.’

Leave not granted.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

—Further to the question that the Manager of Opposition Business has raised with you, do I take it that they will on their stationery and in all other manner be known as assistant ministers and parliamentary secretaries for whatever their responsibilities are, given that they retain both functions, as you have indicated in your answer?

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Chief Opposition Whip. I do not believe that is the responsibility of the Speaker. However, he may wish to take it up with the individual members.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With great respect, the way members entitle themselves, I think, would be the responsibility of the Speaker. Strictly speaking, I understand it is the Prime Minister who allocates portfolios, but you did say that they retained both titles—that is, ‘assistant minister and parliamentary secretary for’. I just assumed we would not want to mislead the public or anyone else. That is the way they would communicate their responsibilities.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Chief Opposition Whip, and I understand the point he is making. However, I believe that, as they are also part of the executive in another form, that point is not the responsibility of the Speaker.