House debates

Thursday, 26 November 2009

Questions without Notice

Economy

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Herbert is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours under standing order 94(b).

The member for Herbert then left the chamber.

I now might be able to conclude my remarks. The House would remember I asked the Treasurer and the Manager of Opposition Business to resume their seats. If my recollection is right, I had simply made the comment that, based on previous practice of the House, the Treasurer’s response could have been considered to have been relevant. I then wished to make the further comment—and it could be considered by way of caution to the Treasurer—to indicate to the House that the real problem is the amount of debate that is allowed in the answers. As this has caused this longer break in proceedings, I will now read a couple of relevant sections from House of Representatives Practice, which the House might consider over the break. At page 552 it reads:

… Ministers have not been prevented from introducing argument into their answers. Although it has been argued that the standing order provision that ‘questions cannot be debated’ should be read as meaning a prohibition of debate in answering, as well as in putting, a question, it has not been so interpreted by the Chair.

On page 54 it indicates that a procedure committee in 1992, amongst other things, suggested that the standing orders be amended to read, amongst other things, ‘shall not debate the subject to which the question refers’—that is, the answer. I think that is part of the problem. That is why earlier I tried to be very cautious about the amount of argument we have allowed to creep into questions. In an unlevel playing field it seems a reasonable practice of the House to try to make it more level. It is why I attempt to reduce the amount of argument that is introduced into points of order. On this occasion I might add that the two points of order raised by the member for North Sydney—not that I adjudicated in his favour—were points of order.

Comments

No comments