Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. On 14 February the Prime Minister stated in the House that the Howard government averaged 63 question times. In fact, that is the figure for all years of the Howard government. A more accurate comparison—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a question to the Speaker. A more accurate comparison with the 67 question times scheduled for 2008, a non-election year, is the comparison with non-election years in the Howard government, when the average was 70. Will you request that the Prime Minister return to the House to correct the record with the more accurate figure?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that a matter like that is in the hands of the House.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question to you, Mr Speaker. Referring to the last answer given by the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, I do not know whether you are expecting this side of the House to call a point of order when there is clearly a ministerial statement being given as an answer to a question. The power—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McMillan will resume his seat. Any things that people think are matters that they want to question about proceedings of question time should be raised at the time. I would prefer that they are raised at the time by way of point of order. It is not my intention to enter into a question and answer session after question time which is a review of matters that happened in question time.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, during question time today the opposition raised I think 19 points of order, including in answers that were less than 20 seconds into the answer. Notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 86, I would ask whether or not you would consider, as previous Speakers have, reviewing the use of standing orders and points of order to disrupt the business of the House, which has in the past been viewed as disorderly and is in contravention of standing order 91—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Brisbane will resume his seat. The answer is the same as to the member for McMillan. I will not be entering into a question and answer session about proceedings of question time. If people are aggrieved about my actions in the chair, they should raise them at the time. If they think that the points of order are disorderly, I would ask that that be raised at the time. I am not making general comments about the proceedings of the parliament. At this point in time the Speaker may be asked questions about those matters under his or her administration.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Brisbane, if he has a further comment, will not make it by way of interjection. I am saying to the House quite clearly that I will not be in the practice of reviewing every question time for the purposes of replaying things that have happened. If members feel aggrieved about things that are occurring in question time, they should act at the time.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that point of order, Mr Speaker, I was not asking you to reflect in the past on what happened today and make some decision about today. I was referring to the events of today and asking whether, as other Speakers have, you would consider the use of points of order as disruptive, as provided for in the standing orders—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not wish to encourage interjections. The problem that has occurred when we have entered into these discussions is that it leads people to believe that the person raising the question is reflecting on the chair. I do not think that that is the case. The point that I would make is that I do not think that there is any advantage by people asking for advisory rulings. The Chief Government Whip by his body language can just be a bit careful, because I am trying to set the scene. He interjected at one stage about points of order and their disruptive nature, and I tend to agree with that. But that might be best raised at the time and not by way of advisory rulings. That is all I am simply saying.