John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! In respect of points of order that were taken at question time on 17 August, I make the following statement. Yesterday after question time points of order were taken and a request was made that they be referred to me.

It was suggested that, whenever a point of order is raised during question time, I should explicitly rule on whether the point of order is upheld. As was pointed out in the discussion yesterday, the relevant standing order requires that I determine points of order but does not require that I explicitly make a ruling as such. I attempt to keep my responses to points of order as brief as possible so as to cause the minimum interruption to question time.

It was also suggested that I need not hear additional arguments on points of order before determining them. That is quite correct; it is in the discretion of the President as to how much argument is allowed before a point of order is determined. My general approach is that, if a senator wishes to respond to a point of order, it is courteous for me to hear what that senator has to say, provided that it is brief and to the point. I would encourage senators not to discuss points of order at length unless they raise really significant issues, particularly at question time.

Most of the points of order at question time relate to the relevance of ministers’ answers. I think I should reiterate a point made by President Beahan in a statement he made in 1995. There is a tendency to confuse relevance with responsiveness. A minister, in giving an answer, may be relevant to the question, and may be directly relevant to the question, without necessarily providing the response that the questioner believes should be given. Relevance means relevance to the subject matter of the question.

As presidents have ruled over many years, the chair has no power to direct a minister how to answer a question. If, however, I consider that ministers are not being directly relevant to the question, I draw their attention to the question, and sometimes ask them to return to the question, while reminding them of the time they have available to answer it. I will continue to do so in appropriate cases.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Mr President, thank you for responding promptly to the matters raised yesterday. In relation to the second paragraph of your statement, can I inquire: if you determine a point of order but then do not tell the Senate that you have determined it or in which way you have determined it, how is the Senate supposed to know whether the point is valid or otherwise?

Also, in relation to the penultimate paragraph of your statement, whilst I understand the difference between responsiveness and relevance, it does, with respect, Mr President, seem to many of us that, if a minister is not being directly relevant, certainly you cannot direct them how to answer, but you can direct them to sit down having failed to answer the question, which is what question time is all about. Question time is not a game; question time is not for political rhetoric; it is about seeking information from ministers. It is not about giving ministers an opportunity to speak for four minutes or two minutes on a subject of their own choosing; it is meant to try and give senators information—facts—that a senator might require.

Yesterday, when a senator asked whether legal advice had been sought or given, the Senate wanted to know not what the legal advice was but whether the minister had sought it. The minister then got up and said, ‘I refuse to answer the question,’ and then spent two minutes waffling about nothing. Having said that she was not going to answer the question she should have then, with respect, Mr President, been sat down and told, ‘You don’t have to answer it, but you’ve indicated you are not going to answer it; therefore sit down and let the Senate get on with the rest of its work.’

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, might I at the start indicate that I completely agree with what Senator Macdonald said, in particular the last observation he made. That is incontrovertibly so. If a minister says, ‘I am not going to answer this question,’ then, whatever else they may say, it is not an answer to the question. Can I direct you, Mr President, to the penultimate paragraph of your statement. Might I respectfully suggest that, although the distinction between relevance and responsiveness is a real distinction, the manner in which it is expressed by you in this statement is so broadly cast that it seems almost to define the possibility of irrelevance out of existence.

So, Mr President, what I request of you, having regard to the argument developed in the penultimate paragraph of your statement, is for you to come back to the Senate with another statement in which you define ‘irrelevance’. If ‘relevance’ means what you say it means in the penultimate paragraph of this statement it is almost inconceivable that you would treat any answer as irrelevant. And yet we have a standing order requiring that answers be ‘directly relevant’. So would you, Mr President, by way of example, give the Senate some guidance on what would be considered to be irrelevance.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the broad, I support all of the statements that you have made in this statement to the chamber but I would also refer to the second to last paragraph and I ask you to consider two things. One is that the statement that was made by President Beahan in 1995 was actually made prior to standing orders being changed. At that time a minister was only required to be relevant, whereas standing orders have been changed now to require ministers to be directly relevant. So I am not sure that President Beahan’s statement carries weight today in the same way that it did prior to the standing orders being changed.

Mr President, the only other issue that I raise—and this relates to the current state of the chamber—is that I noticed in the last paragraph that you said you draw senators’ attention to the question and you sometimes ask them to return to the question while reminding them of the time they have available to answer it. Can I respectfully suggest that prior to the addition of the digital clocks in this chamber a minister had no idea how much time they had left to answer a question. Because all they had was a light on in the last minute, nobody knew how much time they had left. Since the addition of digital clocks in the chamber, which ministers can look up at and see exactly how many minutes or seconds they have left, it might not be necessary to remind ministers of the time that they have available. By simply glancing up at a clock in the chamber they know how much time they have left. I respectfully ask you to consider that as well.

Question agreed to.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In respect of the matters that have been raised I will take those into further consideration and if needs be I will come back to the chamber.