Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, I have two questions for you.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first refers to the Practice. It was actually just observed then by the Minister for Health. Page 566 of House of Representatives Practice discusses where ministers seek to add to or to correct an answer. While the tradition the minister just followed was for an answer given today, there are in Practice, on page 566, precedents, going all the way back to 1969, of corrections being given where incorrect information has been given to the House on a previous day.

On 14 May, there were multiple statements that we now know to be incorrect, from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, which they have taken no opportunity today in the House, at the first available opportunity, to correct. The Prime Minister told the House on 14 May:

The truth is that six million Australians are benefiting from a JobKeeper program …

He then said:

Six million Australians today are getting support through the JobKeeper program.

The Treasurer said:

The reality is that this JobKeeper program … is supporting some six million workers …

The Treasurer went again, referring to 'six million workers' that were now covered by businesses that were formally enrolled for the JobKeeper payment. And, finally he said:

… I would like the House to acknowledge some six million workers are now covered by the JobKeeper payments …

Not only were none of those statements true but, in terms of the procedures of the House, the protocol that has been in this place for a very long time about incorrect information being corrected has not occurred, and I'm asking what the appropriate processes are for the House to follow as a result of that.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. There's no role for me in that regard, but it is something that the House is always welcome to take up. I'd just point out to him that there's no role for me in judging the factual accuracy of answers or questions. I have to say to the Manager of Opposition Business: he did point out that they were answers to questions. So it's just a matter of fact that ministers who've answered questions can be questioned about those answers at any point. The Manager of Opposition Business had a second question.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Speaker. I reckon there's a chance you've got a role on this one, and that is with respect to standing order 105, which requires that, where we are dealing with a minister's written reply to a question, if a reply has not been received within a reasonable time then there is a capacity for you to take action on behalf of the House. A similar situation arose on 12 May, when, in response to a question from the member for Whitlam—where the member for Whitlam asked: 'My question is to the Treasurer. How many Australians are now earning more than their normal wage because they're receiving the JobKeeper subsidy of $1,500 a fortnight?'—the Treasurer took that question on notice. Since that moment, the House has heard nothing more. Practice refers to a practice where sometimes an answer can be given in writing directly to the member, sometimes it can be given in writing to the Clerk and sometimes it can be given at the dispatch box. But we have a case here where the Treasurer has taken a question on notice, we've had a number of sitting days in question time subsequently, and nothing has come back to the House. Is there any procedure available where you would be able to take action in the way that is otherwise provided for questions on the Notice Paper?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Just thinking about the matter now, again I think it would be in order for a question to be asked about that in question time if any member wanted to do that. When a question is taken on notice, the Manager of Opposition Business is correct: that can be answered in a number of ways. Not so recently, the practice of writing was certainly more common—or to lodge it with the Clerk or the rest. I think probably the approach I would take—because I haven't been asked something like this before—is to really align with the principle on questions that are asked on notice and answers to them. After a certain period has elapsed—I think it's 60 days—a member who hasn't had a reply to that question is entitled to rise after question time, as a number do, and request that I simply write to the minister, which I always do that day. But I can't compel the minister to answer the question.