Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to make a statement to the Senate. As we begin our sittings for this year, I would like to remind all senators about standards that will be applied by the chair, particularly during question time, based on standing orders, longstanding practice and rulings of past presidents. Before Christmas I wrote to party leaders and whips about some of these matters, which are often raised by members of the public with my office.

Firstly, arguing and backchatting with the chair after a decision or ruling has been given is disorderly. Standing order 197 does provide senators with a right to take points of order but must be used appropriately. Persistent failure to come to order when requested to do so by the chair is also disorderly. Similarly, the level of noise and interjections in the chamber often make it impossible for me and others to hear and adjudicate on questions and answers. This is the national parliament; this is not a sporting contest. I do not have access to instant replay, so it can sometimes be very difficult.

Moreover, chairing the Senate is not a group participation activity. It is for the President to apply the standing and other orders. All questions of relevance are a matter for the judgement of the chair, a duty confirmed by the Procedure Committee back in 1994.

Under current rules, ministers must be directly relevant in their answers to the question asked, but it is also important to recognise that relevance and responsiveness are not the same concepts. This is a point which has been made by several of my predecessors, explaining that the chair cannot direct a minister how to answer a question or to give a particular answer. If I consider that ministers are not being directly relevant to the question, I will continue to draw their attention to the question, ask them to return to the question and remind them of the time remaining in which to answer that question. My expectation is that ministers will respond appropriately.

It has often been pointed out that questions might be more effective if they contained less extraneous material, including quotes, assertions, allegations, insinuations or other such material. After all, questions in their purest sense are for the purpose of seeking information, and answers should be similarly confined to providing that information.

However, if a question does contain additional material, the minister is directly relevant in his or her answer if he or she refers to subjects raised in that material. If a question contains a political barb, the minister is entitled, while remaining relevant and within the standing orders, to return the compliment. If senators require ministers to confine their answers strictly to a defined subject then the question itself must be confined to that subject. Again, I would expect ministers to confine the answers to that question.

In addition, supplementary questions must comply with the existing rules—namely, that they are for the purpose of elucidating information arising from the original answer and not for the purpose of introducing new or additional material or proposing a new question, even though such a new question might be related to the subject matter in the original question.

I hope that if senators comply with these rules question time will be far better for it and the Australian people will hopefully respond more favourably to the conduct of the Senate. I thank senators.