Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister patted the member for Hughes on the back and said 'he does a great job'. Can the Prime Minister explain how the member for Hughes's record of undermining medical advice about vaccines, attacking Australia's health agencies and calling masks 'a form of child abuse' during a pandemic is doing a great job? Will the Prime Minister now condemn the member for Hughes's remarks as irresponsible?

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

That question at every level, I believe, is out of order. Members can groan and sigh about what is the practice of the House if they wish to, and I can talk for a very long time about it all, but I can tell you it is very clear that ministers and Prime Ministers cannot be asked about the statements of individual members wherever they are. If someone can find something to the opposite, I'll always listen.

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

First of all, Mr Speaker, the part the question turns on is a quote from the Prime Minister himself at the National Press Club yesterday. That quote is referred to twice in the question. As you know, so I'm not telling you anything you don't know, Practice does confirm very strongly that people can be asked about their own comments. In terms of its link to policy, right now, it is more important than ever in terms of policy that there is public confidence in our health agencies during the pandemic. In terms of both the quote from the Prime Minister himself and the link to the importance of public policy, I'd ask you to reconsider whether the question's in order.

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

I have to say very strongly on the second point: obviously we're well aware of the importance of the issue but that doesn't modify standing orders or practice; it really doesn't. Yes, the Prime Minister was asked about something he said yesterday. On that basis, the rest of the question would be completely out of order. The Manager of Opposition Business.

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

To the point of order: the rest of the question simply asks whether or not the Prime Minister's statement holds given those other facts. In almost every question where we refer to someone's quote we then go to other facts and say: Do they stand by that remark? Does that comment hold? The comment from the Prime Minister that has been quoted is then referred back to in the light of those other comments. That's why it's referred to twice. It's very specifically about a comment the Prime Minister made himself before the National Press Club yesterday.

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

Alright. I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not specifically about that. That's window-dressing to try to do something the procedure doesn't allow.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Members on both sides! For those members who seem to doubt the history and the practice, page 554 of Practice makes very clear what questions can and can't be asked, based on what previous Speakers have ruled out of order—Speakers of all political persuasions, I have to say. They include arrangements between the parties—for example, coalition agreements; policies of previous governments; statements in the House by other members; statements by people outside the House, including other members, notably opposition members, and that's something I think the opposition need to bear in mind if they wish to open this. In other words, all these are anchored around the fact that ministers are responsible for their portfolios. That's what they can be questioned on. This question, I am going to rule out of order. I've given it a lot of consideration. Even though it's asking about a quote from the Prime Minister, essentially it's asking about the Prime Minister's views of a member and of a member's statements. As much as I can see that you'd like me to rule the other way, I feel that if I did do that there'd be a lot of complaints when there were questions about other members. There are other forms of the House where these matters—

A government member interjecting—

No, hang on. There are other forms of the House where these matters can be raised, and they can be raised in a very robust fashion—in fact, have been already today—but the rules for questions are quite clear. I'm being asked to rule differently and I'm not prepared to do that.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect for the ruling that you've made, there are two points, I think. One is that if it is not possible for the opposition or any member in this parliament to ask the Prime Minister about a quote that he has made then that undermines the importance of question time. This is the statement that the Prime Minister made at the National Press Club yesterday. Yes, the second part of the question does put the context in which the question was asked; otherwise it wouldn't make sense. So that's why the second part has to be put in there. That's point 1 that I'll make.

The second point I'll make is that if your ruling is to be consistent then every time those opposite ask about alternative views of those on this side of the House those questions are out of order. Those questions are out of order, because what we have on this side of the chamber, day after day, is questions whereby we get responses that go for three minutes: 30 seconds about their policy, then 2½ minutes about us. So, if we're going to go that way, then we understand—

Government members interjecting—

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

Members on my right! The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be heard.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Mr Speaker. They are, in my view, very clearly the implications of this ruling, and perhaps you might like to reflect—

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

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

on that as well. I think, very clearly, in this chamber the Prime Minister of the day has always had to answer questions—it's been up to them how they've answered them but they've had to answer questions—about their statements in public.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fair enough!

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

I don't need the member for Corangamite interjecting. There's probably a reason no-one else is at this point in time.

Yes, ministers and prime ministers have been asked about their statements, but the statements have to relate to their ministerial or prime ministerial responsibilities. Questions that essentially ask—I'm not going to use the whole 30 seconds—'The Prime Minister or a minister made a statement about a member; what do you think of all that?' open up a Pandora's box. Now, I will say to the Leader of the Opposition and the Manager of Opposition Business I can understand the point they're trying to make. I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make on behalf of all members, okay? Because it can flow both ways very quickly.

I'm ruling the question out of order, but I hope you'd expect I will consider the matter. I won't detain the House any further now. I will look carefully at all of the precedents—and I'm searching for one in Practice where it has occurred—but I just have a different view on that matter. I'm not saying it's impossible to frame those questions, but they need to go to ministerial responsibilities. So we'll go to the next question.