Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Hansard source

Can I go to the point of direct relevance. I again ask senators not to simply restate a preferred part of the question but to bring the point of order to that of direct relevance. Can I remind the senator what direct relevance means in contrast to what relevance used to mean. It used to mean, to quote a ruling of President Baker, that if, for example, a question concerned the state of the economy, the minister's answer is relevant if it refers to the state of the economy. President Beahan said relevance means relevance to the subject matter of the question. The Senate changed the standing orders to require answers to be directly relevant. In my view, to be directly relevant means that an answer must directly refer to or address, including challenging, material or assertions contained in a question or any preamble—that is, it is a narrower test than simply dealing with the same subject matter. It shouldn't deal with the motives of people asking questions unless those motives are assigned in the question itself and, therefore, it would be in order for a minister to challenge those. I just want to remind senators of that because direct relevance is a narrower test than relevance, which was the old subject matter. Minister, Senator Hanson highlighted part of her question. I can't direct you how to answer a question, as long as you are directly relevant to part of the question. And it was a lengthy question in this case, with a preamble, Senator Hanson. So I will listen carefully to the minister and ask her to continue.