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

Mr Speaker, I have a question for you, and it will have a bearing on future question times. It goes to the ruling today with respect to coalition agreements. I refer to page 554 of Practice, where it goes through the different lists of questions that have ordinarily been ruled out of order and cites, as an example of arrangements between parties, 'coalition agreements on ministerial appointments'. Up until today, certainly as far as Practice would indicate, those agreements have not been barred to the extent that they go to policy. If we end up in the situation for the rest of the week or, indeed, the term where a key reason for a major policy of international concern with respect to net zero by 2050 can't be asked about, that would in fact be, on the face of it, quite a new precedent, because the question from the Leader of the Opposition today didn't go in any way to the ministerial appointments.

I simply raise that now because I think this is inevitably going to come up. If the intention today was to make a new ruling, then it was to make a new ruling. If it was simply to reflect on what was already in Practice, then I would not want to see a situation where the House was held back from being able to ask about a major policy topic of national and international concern.

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

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I'll make a couple of quick points. Certainly it's not the case that ministers can't also be questioned about policies for which they're responsible to the House. It's really the manner in which the question is asked. I point out to the Manager of Opposition Business that, certainly, on page 554 of Practice it does say, as he said, 'arrangements between parties'. It does mention 'coalition agreements on ministerial appointments', but before that it says 'for example'. So I will certainly reflect on the issue and reflect on some previous rulings, including those that are cited in the Practice. I think that in 1978 and 2006, certainly, the matter came up several days in a row. My recollection is I've allowed some but knocked back others. I think, probably, the complicating factors today were the ministerial issues for which the Deputy Prime Minister remains responsible and the Leader of the Opposition certainly doing his best by referring to the previous answer. But, obviously, I'll examine that issue. I'm always reflecting on these sorts of matters.