Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was wondering whether I could get a ruling from you overnight, Mr Speaker, around the answer that the Prime Minister gave to question 6. The question was 'Does the Prime Minister remain committed to a national treaty'—and I said 'national treaty' twice, just to emphasise that's what the question was about—'as called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart?' As far as I could hear—there was a lot of noise—the Prime Minister did not mention 'national treaty' once. I just don't know how, then, his answer could be in any way relevant to the question that was asked. I would ask that you consider that overnight and come back to us.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can let the member know now. Under the standing orders, as long as the Prime Minister is being directly relevant to the question—that means to be talking about the subject matter, the topic of the question, not other things. He may not be directly answering the question, which the member was seeking, but under the standing orders he was being relevant.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was about a national treaty, and he didn't mention a national treaty once.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question also involved the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was what it was called for; the question was about the national treaty.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but if you're mentioning things in the question he can do that. I'm happy to talk to the member for Wannon after question time to go through the standing orders with him.