Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

This area of the standing and sessional orders has been raised by the coalition on occasions. I will not go through the history, as Senator Abetz has done so, but fundamentally one of the areas this came from, as the Deputy President would be aware, was experience overseas. I say, by way of example, that when you—in my words—cherry pick part of the outcomes from overseas jurisdictions, include them in the current rules and then try to interpret them in the fashion that you seek to you will trip yourself up. In this instance, with due respect to Senator Abetz, I think he has done that. In one respect, it is a furphy—or at least a hollow argument—to say that past precedent should not be taken into account at all in relation to these matters, if I understood his argument correctly. If I did not, then I will correct the record.

As I understood it, the import of this issue was that it is a new matter that we have to address from the rules without reference to previous principles that have been enunciated in this place. I take issue with that, if I am correct about that from the argument that is put in part by Senator Abetz. If you look at past precedent from Odgers in respect of this matter—on page 500 of chapter 19, ‘Relations with the executive government’, it says:

Questions with or without notice are permissible only for the purpose of obtaining information, and answers are subject to the same limitation, that is, they are limited to supplying the information asked for by the questions.

               …            …            …

In answering a question, a senator must not debate it … Thus an answer should be confined to giving the information asked for, and should not contain any argument or comments. An answer must also be relevant to the question.

It is one example of where past precedent can be referred to to guide and to assist in looking at the sessional orders today. Odgers further states:

… in answering a question:

the Minister should confine himself to points contained in the question with such explanation only as will render the answer intelligible. In all cases the answer must be relevant to the question.

Going on from that the Procedures Committee in 1994 observed—I think this is instructive for those participating in this debate—as follows:

It is clear that, in answering a question, a minister must be relevant to the question. It is for the President to make a judgment whether an answer is relevant to a question. If the answer is not relevant, the President requires the minister to be relevant.

That is, that it is within the ability of the President to rule on that. Odgers goes on at page 501 to say:

It is not the responsibility of the chair to tell ministers how they should respond to questions: ‘That is purely a matter for Ministers, provided their answers are within the standing orders’

It goes further:

It is also not for the chair to determine whether an answer is correct … Challenges to the accuracy of an answer should not take the form of a point of order.

We do seem to have a continuing interest from the opposition in taking a point of order. It is clear—if I can remind those opposite—that when they do rise to their feet to take a point of order, it is not for the chair to determine whether an answer is correct. Challenges to the accuracy of an answer should not take the form of a point of order.

Therefore, in this debate it is permissible to go back and have a look at the precedent in this place. What the precedent tells me is this: it appears that the opposition, in—and I will use the polite form—criticising the President’s ruling in question time, should be, in fact, looking at the nature of the questions they ask. If the opposition declines to use question time for questions, if the opposition does not wish to use question time for questions seeking information—as I think the precedent does demonstrate—and instead uses the forum to try to make political points then they should also accept the President has a different role.