House debates

Tuesday, 15 August 2006

Questions to the Speaker

Standing Order 104

Photo of Kevin RuddKevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I have a question to you concerning your interpretation today of standing order 104. Standing order 104 simply states:

An answer must be relevant to the question.

Mr Speaker, on three occasions today questions were asked of ministers opposite which did not ask for those ministers to speak at all about opposition policies or anything of that nature—alternative views of the world or the state of the opposition in general, yet those three ministers—the Treasurer, the minister for education and the minister for health—saw those questions as providing them with open slather to rip into the opposition. The standing orders, as you know, Mr Speaker, are designed in a way which provides an automatic opportunity for the government of the day. This government, in particular, systematically abuses the standing orders.

Photo of David HawkerDavid Hawker (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The member will not debate his question.

Photo of Kevin RuddKevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | | Hansard source

The one standing order we have as an opposition is standing order 104, which requires relevance. So what I am asking you to do, Mr Speaker, is to reflect on your interpretation of that standing order and your requirement in the future of ministers when they are asked questions to be relevant to those questions, particularly on the question of opposition policy.

Photo of David HawkerDavid Hawker (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the member for Griffith. I would remind him that it has been a long established practice by successive occupiers of the chair that an answer should be relevant in some way. When a question asks, for example, whether there are risks to government policy or threats to government policy, the minister does have the option to answer that in the way he or she chooses. In following that long established practice of previous occupiers of the chair I have ruled accordingly.