Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, yesterday I raised a point of order relating to the words of Speaker Snedden:

The Minister will answer the question and not engage in irrelevancies, such as contrasting the Government and the Labor Party.

You subsequently referred me to page 553 of House of Representatives Practice and I ask whether the words that you thought I should read are those in the second paragraph which say:

Nevertheless, although the test of relevance can be difficult to apply, Ministers have been ordered to conclude their answers or resume their seats as their answers were not relevant. The Chair has also upheld points of order or intimations contesting the relevancy of a Minister’s answer.

Or was it something else you wanted me to read?

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

I am quite happy for you to read the whole of page 553. As you know, I have indicated to the House that I am not taking questions on procedural matters; I have taken questions on administrative matters. But I make observations about the matters that the member originally raised with me, and others have raised with me, which was quoting a Speaker Sneddon ruling that indicated that ministers should not:

… engage in irrelevances’, such as contrasting the Government and Opposition, and the Speaker has directed a Minister so doing not to proceed—

which is something that I think you were imploring me to do. That refers to footnote No. 280, and it is followed by a full stop. Practice goes on to say:

On other occasions such comments have been permitted,

and it refers to footnote No. 281. I just make the observation to indicate the difficulties which chairs have, in attempting to be consistent and attempting to uphold the standing orders, that footnote No. 280—a Speaker Sneddon ruling of 27 August 1981—was followed by, amongst others, footnote No. 281, another Speaker Sneddon ruling less than a fortnight later on 10 September 1981. I can assure the member for O’Connor that I have done my study and referred to the Hansard records of both those footnotes, and I believe that the way in which I am carrying out my duties is consistent with both of those rulings.