Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

It is extremely disappointing to hear the tone in which this debate is being carried out. If we take Senator Williams' comments to heart, if that is the real argument that Senator Williams is putting up, then we may as well just close up, we may as well leave the Senate now, because the process seems to be that if some people did not feel that questions were effectively answered at a previous time then no question should be effectively answered at any time.

We have standing orders in this place that have been enshrined, and in fact only recently amended—and you would remember this, Mr Deputy President—under President Ferguson, when he left the presidency and had time to look at putting changes into the way we operated to ensure that we would have a system where people would be held to account. When ex-President Ferguson put those amendments to the standing orders through, there was an attempt to ensure answers to questions were directly relevant. From that time the direct relevance aspect has been used by the previous opposition and the now opposition to ensure that answers being given by ministers have direct relevance. We know that the President and yourself, Mr Deputy President, have both been known to say in this place many times that you cannot direct any minister how to answer a question. But what can be done—and what I believe must be done—is to ensure that, when an answer is given that does not have specific, direct relevance to the question asked, the minister's attention should be drawn to the question.

It seems to me that what we continue to do on a daily basis in this place is work through as best we can with the system we have, a system that is strong, a system for which we have effective standing orders and a system that it is our job in this place to look at, to learn about and to work within. In that context, it is the job of everybody in this place to be aware of the rules and to work with them. Of course there will be times when ministers, of all flavours in all governments, will take the opportunity to put their spin on the answer and to answer a question in the way they feel is best. And that is fine. But we cannot take away the responsibility to continue to ensure that when questions are asked, publicly and quite specifically, ministers need to respond with direct relevance.

That was why points of order were taken today to specific questions that were looking at specific timing issues. We do not believe that specific answers going to timing were given. That will be a point of contention; people will argue about that. I was going to talk more about food safety in my taking note but I was drawn to making this particular point because of comments that were made by previous speakers.

Also taking up a previous point, I say that we are not in any way questioning the decency of any minister—and in particular Minister Nash. To try and cloak any attempt not to answer questions, or to come into this place without looking specifically what has happened in this case, as some attack on the decency of a minister is not true. Basically, we are asking questions about process and we are seeking answers about process. Mr Deputy President, as you well know, that is a standard action of people in this place—and it should be. Whenever there is a question about how duties are actually done, what influences are there—and, in these cases, it is clearly pointed out—then there must be strict adherence to codes relating to any question of a conflict of interest. We all know that.

When the new government came into power they were very clear about the processes that they were going to put in place to ensure that the codes of conflict of interest were not going to be in any way confusing and would be adhered to strongly. That was a statement they made, as they should. So, when a question is raised, the answers should be given in the same way. It is not a personal attack; it is clearly an attempt to ensure that the system works well—and that not only the people in this place know what is going on but so do people in the wider community, because that is what makes our parliament strong.

We talk with pride about the way we operate in this place, our democratic principles and the way we ensure that due process is followed. Therefore it is our job to ensure that we work to make that happen. Questions must be asked to look into any confusion and any process and those questions should be answered. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.