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