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

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to his quote this month when he said, 'Tharnicaa and Kopika were born in Australia. Maybe if their names were Joan and Sally we'd think twice about sending them back to another country which they're not from.' In his capacity as minister for regional development, does he still support the government letting Tharnicaa, Kopika and their family go home to 'Bilo' in regional Queensland, and will he use his position as Deputy Prime Minister to advance their cause?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the purpose of question time is to hold ministers to account for their portfolio responsibilities. The topic that the Leader of the Opposition has raised is not within the ministerial responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister, and that is very clear. As such, the question should be ruled out of order.

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

Mr Speaker, to the point of order: there are many times in this House where ministers answer questions where they don't have the decision-making within their portfolio but the outcome of the decision-making is relevant to the areas they represent. It happens in agriculture all the time, it happens in regional Australia all the time, where, if there is an impact on their stakeholders, they take questions. There would be days of parliament where, on the basis of what the Leader of the House just said, almost all of the government's questions from that side would be ruled out if that were to be the standard. This question goes immediately to the impact on regional Australia and whether the minister will be advocating in that way or not.

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

The difficulty with it—and the Practice, I think, makes this quite clear—is that it has to go to the minister's responsibilities. Yes, I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business again.

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

I'll put it in these terms, Mr Speaker: when a trade agreement is there, there is one minister responsible for the trade agreement; but we get 10 questions across the whole frontbench, because they have stakeholder interests, and no-one objects. Here regional Australia has a stakeholder interest in this family, and that's what's being asked.

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

But the difference in what the Manager of Opposition Business went to—I've obviously had cause to reflect on this prior to today—is that he is being asked about a quote from before he was the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Practice makes very clear that ministers cannot be asked about their statements prior to being a minister. It makes it very, very clear, and I can take you to the page if you'd like. In fact, for the benefit of the House, I think I should.

A Minister can only be questioned on matters for which he or she is responsible or officially connected.

…   …   …

A Minister may not be asked a question about his or her actions in a former ministerial role.

It talks about statements as well. The only exception that's been allowed by a Speaker is if a minister themselves refers, in an answer to a question, to a statement made in a former role. Let's just be clear for everyone watching: the Deputy Prime Minister is being asked about a statement he made when he was a backbencher, not the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Practice has made very clear those questions are out of order.

An honourable member interjecting—

No, it doesn't. I know he's being invited to answer it. If the question is out of order, it's out of order. It's as simple as that.