Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the President’s statement delivered earlier today.

I thank the Senate. Firstly, I regret I was not in the chamber when the President delivered his statement this morning. In my defence, I was not notified. I note the President’s absence now, which is necessitated by his other duties, which is understood. Secondly, in taking issue with the statement of the President, I indicate that this is a taking of issue with the statement, not the person. The President continues to enjoy our support and confidence. The coalition nevertheless respectfully but very forcefully takes issue with the reasoning in the statement, as it completely ignores the fundamental reform voted on by this chamber on 13 November 2008 and confirmed and reconfirmed just as recently as three weeks ago.

Allow me to canvass the lead-up to the President’s statement. Yesterday Senator Birmingham asked, as always, an excellent question of Senator Conroy. Senator Brandis during Senator Conroy’s answer raised a point of order seeking the invocation of sessional order 22, which requires in subparagraph (c):

… answers shall be directly relevant to each question.

Senator Brandis said in part in his point of order:

While the minister is addressing generally the topic, he was asked two very narrow questions …

                  …              …              …

He cannot be directly relevant in failing to provide the two quantities sought.

Senator Birmingham followed up with a similar point of order, which went:

I have a point of order, Mr President. It goes to the changes to the standing orders that this chamber passed in relation to the change from relevance to direct relevance. …

              …              …              …

… the minister was asked very specifically for two pieces of information.

                  …              …              …

… if direct relevance is to mean anything in this chamber the minister’s attention needs to be brought to those two specific pieces of information or he should be sat down.

The President responded in part:

I have explained that as previous presidents before me have explained it.

                  …              …              …

He—

the minister—

might not be answering the question in the terms that you desire but I cannot instruct the minister, and if you read the precedents of this chamber you will find that that is the case.

In response I rose on a point of order and said:

… Mr President, the precedents in relation to the points of order and all the previous rulings that you refer to refer to different standing orders. We actually amended the sessional orders in this place to require ministers to be directly relevant. That was a specific change made by this chamber to ensure that ministers were relevant. To now rely on previous precedents absent of the change made to the sessional orders is, with respect, Mr President, not to understand or give fulfilment to the changes that the Senate voted on specifically to overcome the shortcomings of ministers—

and I uncharitably added:

… such as Senator Conroy.

The President kindly responded by saying:

I will go out and I will review what has transpired …

The President in a very timely fashion reviewed the situation and delivered his statement in response this morning.

Having outlined the history, I seek to deal with the substance. With great respect, for the President to have said, as he said yesterday, that he relied on previous presidents’ rulings is to completely ignore the fundamental change the Senate voted for in 2008, when President Hogg was already in the chair as our President. It is simply not appropriate to rely on precedents that were related to the unamended standing orders. With respect, those precedents are—to be blunt—irrelevant. Those rulings and precedents actually gave rise to this Senate deeming there was a need for sessional order 22, requiring answers to be directly relevant. It is therefore, with respect, difficult for the coalition to understand the President’s reliance on precedents which were designed to be overcome by the new sessional order 22.

Turning to the five-paragraph statement of the President, I make the following observations. We take no issue with paragraph 1. We do, however, challenge the robustness of the reasoning in paragraph 2. The President states:

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

However, we say, with respect, the President can—indeed, not only can but under the standing orders must—require the answer to be directly relevant. The minister, in answering, is either in or out of conformity with a relevant standing order or sessional order. But we really take issue with this aspect of the President’s statement:

Provided that an answer is directly addressing the subject matter of the question, it is not within the power of the chair to require a minister to provide a particular answer.

The last part of the statement is, with respect, a straw-man argument. The coalition does not require a particular answer; indeed, it is not up to us. The issue is that standing orders and sessional orders require—indeed, mandate—answers to be ‘directly relevant to each question’. No ifs, no buts and no addressing the subject matter, as the statement asserts, but direct relevance to each question and nothing less. If the statement by the President were to be an accurate reflection of sessional order 22, the following could occur. The questioner could ask, ‘What is the budget deficit?’ According to the statement, if the answer canvassed the subject matter of the budget, it would be directly relevant for the minister to refer in his or her answer to funding for a local community group that was referred to in the budget. Such an interpretation, as countenanced by the President’s statement, with respect, fails to embrace in any way, shape or form the import of sessional order 22, which was specifically designed to alter the culture and overcome the previous precedents of this place. The statement by the President seeks for the Senate to completely ignore sessional order 22.

In paragraph 3, the statement gratuitously suggests senators have certain expectations of receiving the specific answer they have in mind. As an aside, currently the coalition’s expectation is that we will not receive any answer whatsoever. With respect, this assertion in the President’s statement both is wrong and misses the point. All the coalition expects is that the answer be in compliance with sessional order 22—namely, that it be directly relevant and not just dealing with the subject matter. Indeed, if the Senate wanted the sessional order to be so interpreted, I am sure we would have drafted sessional order 22 to read, ‘Answers shall directly address the subject matter of the question.’ Instead, we drafted and voted for a change which requires answers to be ‘directly relevant to each question’.

Paragraph 3 regrettably again refers to rulings by previous presidents which are, with respect, as I have already pointed out, irrelevant given the adoption of the changes. I note the statement also claims the chair has no basis to withdraw the call except to restore order. With respect, if this is correct, it allows any senator to be completely irrelevant in any contribution and the chair could only request relevance. Surely, repeated refusals to be relevant would allow the chair to require the senator to resume his or her seat and then move to the next senator.

To conclude, the statement comprehensively ignores the change made courtesy of the Senate’s adoption of sessional order 22. To ignore the sessional order is to ignore the will of the Senate. That is the seriousness of the President’s statement. That is the practical consequence of the President’s statement. That is why the coalition respectfully requests the President to reconsider his statement of this morning. I reconfirm our issue is not with President Hogg. Our issue is with his statement and our desire that ministerial answers be directly relevant to each question, as mandated by sessional order 22.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to 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.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I afforded your leader the opportunity to provide his statement without interjection and I would ask for the same respect because we are dealing with a matter. For many years presidents have restated the reality that they cannot direct ministers to provide answers that the opposition want to hear. Ministers are required to be directly relevant to the question, not to provide the answer that the opposition in this instance want to hear. The precedent which I have averred to supports that position. In reality the opposition may be dissatisfied with responses by government ministers—that proposition is longstanding. I have no doubt when in opposition I was also most likely persuaded that the then government’s responses to my questions did not satisfy them.

The Senate has developed procedures for the opposition to express their dissatisfaction. The take note period after question time is one response. It provides limits on the time to respond to answers, which was another approach to ensure that could occur. Regardless though of these changes the opposition does need, in my view, to recognise that the President cannot second-guess the answer that the opposition want to hear and ensure that a minister provides that and only that response. This will not be the case. The Procedure Committee has examined this issue, as those in the chamber would be aware, and they would have had the opportunity of looking at the Procedure Committee report in this area. It has determined the rules for question time. Quite frankly, it is time that the opposition stopped complaining about a process when it is one that was brought in by them and acceded to by us to achieve a purpose where you only take half a rule not a full rule in dealing with this issue.

Of course, in using the New Zealand model, you have now adopted a hybrid of that and implemented that. It comes without the opportunity of providing notice to the government of the nature of the question that is being asked. That would afford the opposition the ability for the minister to deal with the question that was asked in a way that at least the opposition might find a little bit more adequate. But that was not adopted by this house; that is recognised and I am not arguing for it now. I am simply saying that in this instance the ruling that the President provided was correct. The position that the President provided remains correct. It is not the case—as has been made by Senator Abetz—that the ruling is incorrect.

What the President has done is rely on past precedent, look at the current wording and ensure that the provision that he has made is both relevant and timely to respond to the issue that was raised by Senator Abetz. It is time for the opposition to, quite frankly, understand the nature of the ruling and understand and apply the standing orders of the Senate as included within that sessional order.

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

In rising, may I first associate myself with Senator Abetz’s remarks and remind honourable senators—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marshall interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Marshall, can I remind you this is a serious discussion.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marshall interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Marshall, this is a serious discussion that has been heard in silence. I would ask that you listen to Senator Brandis in silence.

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

The debate that the opposition has initiated, which involves criticism of the statement made by President Hogg this morning in explaining his ruling of yesterday afternoon but is not a reflection on the ruling, is a course of action on which we embark with great care and hesitation. It is very unusual. This is a very unusual parliamentary debate. The fact that the opposition has brought this debate on should of itself convey to others, including President Hogg, the seriousness with which we regard the matter.

In relation to the contributions by Senator Ludwig, let me simply say one thing. If Senator Ludwig is right, then by adopting sessional order 22 the Senate made no change to its practice. If Senator Ludwig is right, then sessional order 22 means nothing, and that plainly is not the case. When the Senate adopted sessional order 22, it changed the rule. It changed the rule from a rule that required an answer to be relevant to a rule that required an answer to be directly relevant. If Senator Ludwig is right, the addition by the Senate after due deliberation of the adjective ‘directly’ means nothing.

I do not think any senator who participated in that discussion thought that when we adopted sessional order 22 we were not intending to change the practice; we were not intending to refine, to make more specific, the meaning of the term ‘relevance’. The precedents to which Senator Ludwig has referred, which were directed to the old standing order which did not require direct relevance, are to that extent themselves not relevant to the new standing order because the test is now different.

There are three respects in which I want to make some observations about the approach that has been taken by President Hogg. Like Senator Abetz, I want to begin with the second paragraph of his statement where he says:

Regardless of whether the requirement is for relevance or direct relevance, I cannot direct a minister how to answer a question. Provided that an answer is directly addressing the subject matter of a question, it is not within the power of the chair to require a minister to provide a particular answer.

With all due respect to President Hogg, both sentences are wrong. I will explain why. Let me deal first with the assertion in the statement that all that a minister must do to make himself directly relevant is to address the subject matter of the question. That is plainly wrong, because that is not what sessional order 22 says. What sessional order 22 says is, ‘Answers shall be directly relevant to each question.’ It is a point Senator Abetz made—not to the subject matter of each question but to the question itself. So, for example, when Senator Birmingham’s question yesterday, which precipitated this debate, asked for a quantity, that was the question—what is the quantity? It is not responsive to that question, with respect, merely to address the subject matter in which the particular question arises. If that were the case, then any minister could address any aspect of public policy within the context of which a particular question arose. That is not a relevant answer.

I think the error that has crept into President Hogg’s reasoning arises from the fact that President Hogg has sought to apply to question time the test of relevance applied by the standing orders for parliamentary debate. That is where the error lies. It lies in the misapplication of standing order 194(1) which provides:

A senator shall not digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion ...

That is the definition of relevance for the purpose of parliamentary debate. But questions asked in question time are not ‘questions under discussion’; they are not questions before the chair. They are questions to ministers and they are governed by a different provision of the standing orders, chapter 11. Chapter 11 provides particular rules for the asking and answering of questions which make it clear that question time is not part of parliamentary debate and questions asked in question time are not questions before the chair, which is the matter with which standing order 194(1) deals.

That is clear from three things. First of all, it is clear from the title of chapter 11 of the standing orders, which is entitled ‘Questions seeking information’. It is not an aspect of parliamentary debate. Secondly, it is clear from the express terms of standing order 73, which is entitled ‘Rules for questions’, which sets out a number of restrictions and limitations on what may be included in questions which are not limitations on what may be said in the course of parliamentary debate. Thirdly, it is even clearer from the provisions of standing order 73(4) which provides:

In answering a question, a senator shall not debate it.

So, when the opposition asks questions of a minister, we are not engaged in parliamentary debate and, when the minister answers the question, he is specifically prohibited by the standing orders from debating the question. Those are the words of the standing orders. That is what they mean.

I am afraid to say, with all due respect, that the error into which President Hogg, or perhaps those who advised him, has fallen is to apply the relevance test for parliamentary debate in standing order 194(1) and assume that it is the same for question time, when it is as clear as can be from standing order 73, and in particular from standing order 73(4), that there is a different test.

The second error that President Hogg makes in his statement is his assertion—which has been the foundation of most of his rulings on these relevance points of order the opposition has been taking—‘I cannot direct a minister how to answer a question.’ That is true. The presiding officer or the President cannot direct a minister how to answer a question, but it does not follow from that that the President may not require a minister to be relevant, indeed directly relevant, to the question. For the President to require the minister to be directly relevant to the question does not mean that he is telling the minister how to answer the question. He is merely saying that part, or all, of what the minister may be saying is not directly relevant to the question. He is not suggesting the alternative words; he is merely saying that, however the question may be able to be addressed responsively, what the minister is saying now is not directly relevant to the question.

The standing orders provide some guidance on the duties of the President. The principal standing order which sets out the duties of the President in this regard is standing order 184. Standing order 184(1) says:

Order shall be maintained in the Senate by the President.

That is the President’s principal function. He has ceremonial functions and, as you know, he has administrative functions. But his fundamental constitutional function is the function conferred on him by standing order 184 of the standing orders: to maintain order. As you know, Mr Deputy President Ferguson, for a senator to defy the standing or sessional orders of the Senate is disorderly. So the President, in order to fulfil his constitutional function under standing order 184, is obliged to prevent disorderly conduct and that includes any conduct by any senator, including a minister in question time, in disobedience to a standing or sessional order. For the purposes of today’s debate, of course this includes disobedience to the requirement that the minister be directly relevant to the question.

It is as clear as can be that President Hogg considers himself entitled and obliged to rule on relevance issues. Many times this year, since sessional order 22 has been in place, President Hogg has ruled that a minister’s answer is relevant. If a President may rule that the minister’s answer is relevant, then equally, he may rule that the minister’s answer is irrelevant; and, if he so rules, that is a ruling that the minister is out of order, because by so ruling he declares that the minister is being disobedient to sessional order 22. It is as simple as that: if you can rule that it is relevant, you can rule that it is irrelevant, and a ruling that an answer is irrelevant or not directly relevant is not an instruction to the minister as to how to answer the question; it is an insistence that the minister desist from disobedience to sessional order 22. It is as simple as that.

In fact, early in the life of sessional order 22, President Hogg indicated a willingness to direct a minister to be responsive to a question. On six occasions this year—on 2 February, 4 February, 24 February, 17 March, 18 March and 13 May—President Hogg instructed a minister to answer the question or to be relevant to the question. So the statement made in the second paragraph of President Hogg’s statement this morning that he cannot direct a minister to answer the question is in fact at variance with his own previous practice, his own previous interpretation of the same sessional order.

However, since 13 May this year, on the 47 occasions, including today, when either an opposition senator or a crossbench senator raised a relevance point of order, President Hogg departed from his previous practice by merely saying that the minister has so many minutes or seconds in which to conclude his answer and stating, ‘I cannot direct the minister how to answer the question.’ He can do so, he has done so and he ought to do so if he is of the opinion—and it is an opinion that he must form—that the minister is being disobedient to the sessional order.

Sessional order 22 is, in fact, in exactly the same language as standing order 104 of the House of Representatives, requiring answers by ministers in that place to be directly relevant to the question. On four occasions in the House of Representatives, Speaker Jenkins has required ministers to be directly relevant to the question. On 29 September, Speaker Jenkins considered that a question very similar to the question asked by Senator Birmingham yesterday about the cost of expanding the Curtin detention centre—a question that asked for an amount of money, a quantity—was not being answered conformably to the standing orders by Minister Bowen when Minister Bowen merely elaborated upon the government’s border protection policies, and the Speaker insisted that Minister Bowen answer the question.

On 21 October, when a question was asked of Minister Grey on advertising campaigns concerning the Murray-Darling Basin plan, Speaker Jenkins said that an answer which dealt with the government’s Murray-Darling Basin plan but not with the advertising campaign about which the question inquired was not directly relevant and, therefore, disobedient to the standing orders.

On 21 October, Speaker Jenkins ruled that the answer by the Prime Minister to a question about the East Timor detention centre, in which the Prime Minister merely criticised the opposition’s border protection policy, was not directly relevant to that question. He ruled that to attack the opposition was not directly relevant to a question inquiring about a particular failure in the government’s own policies.

On 28 October, most recently, when the Prime Minister was asked why she imposed pressure on the former Prime Minister to abandon the emissions trading scheme, as had been claimed in the press and as we know was the case, once again the Speaker ruled that for the Prime Minister to attack and ridicule the opposition was disobedient to standing order 104 of the House of Representatives because it did not directly address the question asked.

So, on each of those six occasions in the early part of this year on which President Hogg ruled and on the four occasions since the new House of Representatives standing orders came into operation on which Speaker Jenkins ruled, there was demonstrated by both of those Presiding Officers a view that they have a capacity to insist on applying the standing order about direct relevance, that the minister desist from including irrelevant material in their answer and answer the question. Ruling that a minister answer the question is not to tell the minister how to answer the question; it is merely fulfilling the President’s function under standing order 184 to require the minister to behave in an orderly fashion—for this purpose, by not being in defiance of sessional order 22.

Lastly, in the time available to me, nor is it sufficient for the President to say that the minister still has so many seconds to go. It reaches the absurd point where it would never be possible, no matter how irrelevant the minister was being. If the minister were reciting nursery rhymes, on that rule the minister could not be regarded as not being directly relevant if the minister had a second or two to go in which, possibly, they will come to the question. That offends logic. It offends common sense. It is not a rule that has been adopted by Speaker Jenkins, nor is it a rule that was adopted by President Hogg before 13 May—after which date he changed his practice. The opposition, with respect and reluctance, urges President Hogg to fulfil his duties under standing order 184 and enforce sessional order 22 according to its terms.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think this is a serious debate and I think that we have to break from the 14 years that I have been in the Senate in which the government has taken advantage of (a) having a President in the chair and (b) flouting the standing orders. The opposition has also taken the opportunity to flout the standing orders to get into debate and sees question time as an opportunity for scoring points rather than for gaining information.

This was all on display yesterday. Yes, ministers routinely fail to answer questions. But I draw your attention to the first supplementary question from the opposition in the Senate yesterday, as against the rules for questions in standing order 73—which I drew to the President’s attention and which he referred to in his statement today—which rule out questions containing arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets, ironical expressions or hypothetical matter. Here is that question from Senator Fifield, leading for the opposition, yesterday:

I am surprised that the Leader of the Government in the Senate could take such a casual interest in the agenda of the parliament and his government, but I do thank him for again confirming that the opposition to VSU is the most pressing issue facing this parliament and nation. Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the fact that the Senate ran out of government business yesterday, is this not further evidence that the government has no agenda, no plans and no direction and has lost its way?

That is an entirely vacuous question which is really a political point-scoring submission to the Senate dressed up as a question.

What I submit from the crossbench and from the Greens is that, if the government and opposition want a genuine question time in here, the opportunity is coming. It is and always has been the position of the Greens that question time should be for eliciting information in the public interest. We, during the last period of government, entertained with honourable members of the opposition the prospect of notice being given for questions, as in the New Zealand parliament, so that ministers were forewarned, were able to seek information and were able to come in here and deliver information to the chamber. For some reason that has not manifested itself. Maybe the government, the Labor Party, did not want that particular arrangement, but it would seem good sense to me. If you want information out of government ministers, who are just human beings who do not carry all that information in their heads, then you give some warning on the day that the question is going to be asked and you expect to get the best information available. It means the minister has got time not just to speak to his or her office staff but to go to the bureaucracy and elicit the information that is required. That is pure common sense, but we have had no agreement on that. On the other hand, when the opposition ask questions, they should be short, succinct, to the point—

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

Like yours?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, exactly. If you look at them you will see a better plan of action than yours, Senator Fifield—and I listened with respect to your colleague’s submission and I expect that you will do the same. The opportunity exists here for the Greens and the opposition, together with the government, to get better outcomes, if that is what you really want. I put it to the opposition now to approach me and the Greens, our fellow crossbenchers and, indeed, the government—because these things ought to be done by the whole of the chamber—to see how we can better change not just the standing orders but the way in which question time is used by all members of the Senate. I put that genuinely to both the opposition and the government.

What I have watched for 14 years here is simply a point-scoring exercise, a political exercise, rather than an information-getting exercise. I have heard these debates before, but I am saying we now have an opportunity to move this forward. I congratulate members of the opposition for changing the standing orders. We now have a question with two supplementaries, with time limits, and the House has adopted that. It has seen a better outcome. It is better than the free-for-all we used to have. But let us now move on from that to see if we can get better definition, if not agreement, on both the asking of questions and the delivering of information. The New Zealand parliament, for one, does. It is another option to be looked at.

I do think it is reasonable to expect that if ministers are going to be asked to give answers to questions, particularly where either complexity or important information such as of a budgetary nature is involved, then they ought to be given notice. One of the reasons ministers try to duck questions and be non-specific is that they are held to account: if they make a mistake, it will not be seen as a mistake; it will be seen as a misleading of parliament, with attendant motions. So I think we have to have a better spirit of goodwill but look genuinely at how we can improve question time. We can do it; I am making that offer; and I hope this debate does not come to nothing. We need to improve the way in which questions are delivered so they are not point-scoring and we need to improve the answers to questions so they are genuinely informative and serve the public interest.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is very important that, in turning question time into something more than a cathartic experience of the irrelevant, we make sure that we actually get something close to an answer to the question asked. In the modified rules in conjunction with standing orders 72 and 73, sessional order 22(c) notes that an answer must be ‘directly relevant’—that is, the answer must be candid, it must be frank, it must be unreservedly straightforward, it must not be posed or rehearsed, and it must have bearing on and be connected to the matter at hand. It must accomplish the goal of answering the question. There must be an empirical process between the intersubjectivity of the question and the answer. Why do we have question time? It is no more than trying to find out or discover the truth or belief, or at least get a greater understanding of the justification of a process that goes on in the parliament. It has got to be more about knowing that, rather than knowing how, and it is certainly not knowledge by acquaintance, which seems to be the process that it has devolved into.

What we are seeing more and more is that question time has turned into a form of a priori dirge delivered from the couches of one side against the other. That does not resolve the question as intended by the Australian public, which is the reason we are here. It is not a theatrical experience for us; it is actually about trying to get information back out to the public so that they can have an understanding of how their nation is being governed. Sir Richard Baker, right at the start, stated that you do not have to answer the question, you are not compelled to answer the question, but you cannot give a nonanswer. If you are going to give a nonanswer you have to sit down. That should not be seen as a great insult; it should just be seen as part of the process. We are seeing that in the other place. People are being sat down and I do not see the world coming to an end. But that is something that we must look at.

If we are going to say the words ‘directly relevant’ then either we move away from our comprehension of the English language or we start following exactly what they mean. When we ask a direct question such as ‘what is three plus three’, the answer is six. It is not an expose of the benefits of primary school mathematics and the deficiencies of previous governments and previous ministers.

The motion to change the standing orders was passed and it was passed for a purpose. Everything happens for a purpose. With humble respect, if we could now have a removal of the dissertations on inane ideas and move towards answers, it would be appreciated by the people who find themselves in the unfortunate circumstance of having nothing else to listen to but question time. Apparently, 60,000-plus people actually do that. If we can make question time work then it becomes a great mechanism. More and more, the answers are being found in alternative venues. It seems a shame that you get a more honest answer on A Current Affair, The 7.30 Report or Lateline than we get in the chamber. Surely, if there is a place where we should get an honest answer, it is here.

Senator Ludwig said that the President must judge whether an answer is relevant. What I am trying to remember is whether the President has ever judged an answer not to be relevant. I cannot think of a time in this chamber when any answer has ever been ruled as irrelevant. What is the point of question time if there are no relevant answers? I note that standing order 73(1)(h) says that you cannot ask for the expression of an opinion. So if you cannot ask for the expression of an opinion why is that so often the answer that you get? If the standing order states that you should not be asking for an expression of opinion, there must somewhere have been the belief that what you were going to get in return for asking a question was not the expression of an opinion.

I think that there is a general belief by the Australian public that we can do better than we are doing at the moment. I genuinely believe that there is a sense of goodwill in trying to bring this about. I would be so bold as to think that there is a possible sense of fear on the part of the President of the ramifications if we actually do follow the standing orders, as noted in temporary order 22(c). We have heard what Senator Bob Brown has had to say and we have heard the views of the Liberal and National parties. I presume Senator Xenophon is of the same mind. I am sure there are good people on the Labor Party side who also want to make sure that we have the possibility of changing the culture here. If we do not change the culture to turn question time into a forum where there is a real discovery of facts and a delivery of outcomes so that there is a purpose to it, then the chamber will end up being a place where you go to answer your emails and a place where you go for some quiet time before you go back to work.

There are many venues for people to offer opinions. You can offer an opinion at the doors. You can offer opinions in so many debates. As Senator Brandis has clearly pointed out, the purpose of question time is to obtain answers. I hope that, without being too convoluted, we make sure that the standing orders that have been put in place to make answers directly relevant are adhered to. That means that when we ask a question we actually get an answer.

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

I call Senator Fifield.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can keep talking. You can talk on it all you want.

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

Order! Senator Conroy, I know that you have just entered the chamber, but this debate has been held in a very orderly fashion and I wish it to continue that way. I call Senator Fifield.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to 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—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Conroy, I suggest you read standing order 197(1).

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

because we know that the President does not have that capacity. But more concerning is the start of that particular statement, where the President says:

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

Implicit in that is a suggestion that perhaps there is not that much difference between a test of relevance and a test of direct relevance. I think that perhaps one of the problems here is that phrases that are often used in this place can sometimes find that their plain meaning becomes faded. I think it is helpful to revisit the plain meaning of these words. The plain meaning of the word ‘relevant’ in the Macquarie Dictionary is:

bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; to the purpose; pertinent: a relevant remark.

As I look at Senator Conroy, I am reminded again of how we never hear anything from Senator Conroy that has bearing upon or is connected with the matter in hand—that is to the purpose, pertinent, a relevant remark. Yesterday was a terrific exposition of that lack of—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is inviting a response!

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

And you have just given it!

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

That is right: Senator Conroy is a terrific exponent of how not to be relevant. As has been canvassed, the temporary order that came into play added the word ‘directly’ before relevant, and I quote the definition of the word ‘directly’:

1. in a direct line, way, or manner; straight.

2. without delay; immediately.

3. presently.

4. absolutely; exactly; precisely.

Adding the word ‘directly’ before ‘relevant’ does significantly and substantively change the standing order. I was concerned that there was perhaps the hint in the statement by the President that there was not much of a difference between relevance and direct relevance. But more concerning than that is the sentence that follows that in the President’s statement which says:

Provided that an answer is directly addressing the subject matter of a question, it is not within the power of the chair to require a minister to provide a particular answer.

As has been canvassed, there has never been a subject matter test in the standing orders or in a temporary order. It has never been the case in this place that, as long as an answer is in the ballpark and is related to the subject matter, that is sufficient. It is not sufficient. It may be helpful, it may be nice and it may be good that an answer is on the subject matter—you would hope that an answer would at least be on the subject matter—but that is not sufficient. The answer needs to be directly relevant—and directly relevant not to any vague concept but to the question itself. It is a very different proposition, and I think this is one that the President should very carefully examine, because this particular concept of addressing the subject matter is essentially a new creation; it is not founded in the standing orders or the temporary orders. If you did apply that particular test of subject matter, each and every utterance from Senator Conroy’s mouth in question time would be found to be within the standing orders, and I think we all know it is not.

As has been indicated by my colleague Senator Brandis, this is not a matter which is raised lightly. It is a matter which the opposition gave very serious consideration to before taking the decision to seek leave to raise these matters. I would encourage the President to consider his statement of this morning alongside this afternoon’s contributions. All of us want to see this place work well. All of us want to see government held to account. Indeed, I suspect there are even members of the government itself who recognise that executive accountability as practised in this chamber is for the overall benefit of good governance; it keeps governments on their toes and makes sure that they are more thoughtful and deliberative in what they do. So the opposition would encourage the President to seriously study the contributions this afternoon.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank most senators for the manner in which this debate has been undertaken. The simple fact is that, prior to sessional order 22 being implemented, all that was required by our standing orders was in standing order 73(4):

In answering a question, a senator shall not debate it.

As a result of question time falling into disrepute and disrepair, the Senate voted for sessional order 22 to apply, requiring that answers be directly relevant to each question.

We had a contribution from Senator Bob Brown which, if I might say so, was somewhat unfortunate in relation to the assertions made as to Greens questions: that they are never too long and never political. In the very short period of time that we have had, just yesterday I found that page 20 of the proof Hansard records Senator Milne asking a question, ending with ‘(Time expired)’. In other words, she ran out of time. Why? Because the question was too long.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McEwen interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly, and I accept the Labor interjection that it happens to our side of politics as well. But to suggest that somehow it is only the Greens that ask short questions is shown to be false by virtue of the Hansard itself. To try to dress yourself up as being ‘holier than thou’ when the record actually shows the opposite is, I must say, a matter of concern.

Apart from the time issue, Senator Bob Brown also suggested that the Greens never ask politically charged or argumentative questions. I see Senator Conroy’s eyes rolling. Well, here’s a go. This is Senator Brown:

I refer to the cover-up by Mitch Hooke and the Minerals Council—

clearly not argumentative or political. He then goes on to ask whether this:

… is going to reduce the ability of Australians to have $17 million to $30 million spent on their welfare withdrawn to support a political campaign.

In another question, he refers to this being ‘subsidised in this obscene way by the taxpayers’. I think the term ‘obscene way’ may well also fall foul of a strict interpretation of standing orders. I do not criticise Senator Brown for doing it—we all do it—but to come into this chamber and try to claim that it is only the Greens who do not ask politically charged questions and who do ask short questions seeking information is shown to be absolutely wrong by the Hansard record itself.

On a lighter note, I conclude by reminding the President that, if he believes that he does not have sufficient power, we do have standing order 206, which says:

If a senator wilfully disobeys an order of the Senate, that senator may be ordered to attend the Senate and may be taken into custody.

The President would have our full support if he were to do that in relation to some of the ministers opposite. More seriously, I indicate that we have not raised this matter to reflect on the President—he has our support—but, with great respect, we find ourselves unable to support the statement that was provided to the Senate earlier today, and I would therefore request the President to reconsider the statement.

Question agreed to.