Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

As has been stated by my colleagues, the President enjoys the confidence of the chamber and the support of the opposition. The President’s role as the custodian of the values, traditions and conventions of this institution is respected and the President’s duty to act as the guardian of the standing orders of this place is one that we affirm and fully support.

The standing orders of the Senate, as we all know, are much more than a guide for order and good conduct. They are the rule of law in this place. Every senator is equal before, and fully subject to, the standing orders. Their enforcement ensures that the many functions of this place are given effect to. One of the key functions of this place is that of providing executive accountability. This chamber’s practice of parliamentary accountability has long been superior to that of the other place. That is to the credit of the current President and you, Mr Deputy President, and your predecessors. It is also to the credit of senators on all sides.

While the estimates and committee processes are important, the heart of executive accountability in this place is question time. The role of ensuring executive accountability is actually a shared responsibility between non-government senators and the President. Senators who do not hold government office can always be relied upon to ask questions of the executive, whereas the executive, we know, cannot be relied upon to be transparent or to answer questions. Natural self-interest militates against that, which is the very reason that we have question time. That is where the President’s essential role in the accountability process comes into play.

The President clearly is neutral in the chair, but he or she is not neutral on the subject of executive accountability. The President is not a disinterested party. The President’s tool is the standing orders, and it is his or her obligation to ensure that they are enforced in this place.

Without appropriate orders and enforcement, while there may well be the form and the theatre of question time, there will not be accountability. The opposition is a necessary but not a sufficient prerequisite to ensure that accountability. The President is as much a part of ensuring executive accountability in question time as is the opposition itself. That has been ventilated by my colleagues.

The opposition is, with great respect to the President, troubled by some elements of his statement this morning on the application of the relevance rule under the standing orders. The President’s statement was prompted by a point of order from Senator Abetz which the President undertook to review, and the opposition appreciate him doing that. We are troubled because, whereas the practice of question time has been superior in this place compared to the other, recently the House has lifted its performance, and I think we would all hate to see this place eclipsed by them. But we are troubled specifically about the application and interpretation of the temporary order that states:

… answers shall be directly relevant to each question.

I hope that I am in a position to be helpful as there are a number of points in the President’s statement which are easily clarified. The President stated that ‘senators have an expectation of receiving the specific answer that they have in mind’. We have no such expectation—never have and indeed never will from this government. We have no expectation but also we have no preconception as to what the answers will be. How can we? Mr President can certainly put that particular concern to one side.

The President also stated, ‘It is not within my power to require a minister to provide a particular answer.’ This is something that is completely accepted and understood, and indeed the opposition has never sought this. The President also said, ‘When they do not receive that answer, they raise points of order.’ That is not why we raise points of order. We raise points of order for one reason and that is that the answers are not directly relevant as required by the standing orders and by the temporary order. I hope that is of assistance to the President.

There are two other points, however, in the President’s statement that have particularly exercised the opposition, as indicated by Senator Abetz, Senator Brandis and Senator Joyce—firstly, where the President states:

Regardless of whether the requirement is for relevance or direct relevance, I cannot direct a minister how to answer a question.

Again, that is a misconception. We have not asked the President to direct the minister how to answer questions. That is something that we never do—