 |
Chapter 19 - Relations with the executive government
Rules for
questions and answers
The basic requirements of questions
and answers were stated by President Laucke to be:
-
questions
must relate to matters for which a minister is responsible
-
questions
and answers should be brief
-
requests
for statistical information should be placed on the Notice Paper and should not
be sought on the floor of the chamber on any occasion
-
quoting should be
avoided, except to the degree necessary to make a question clear
-
replies
should be confined to giving information, and no debate should be entered into
(SD, 21/10/1976, p. 1370).
The following rules for questions are contained in standing order 73:
Questions shall not contain:
-
statements of fact or names
of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question
intelligible and can be authenticated;
-
arguments;
-
inferences;
-
imputations;
-
epithets;
-
ironical expressions; or
-
hypothetical matter.
Questions shall not ask:
-
for an expression of
opinion;
-
for a statement of the
Government’s policy; or
-
for legal opinion.
Questions shall not refer to:
-
debates in the current
session; or
-
proceedings in committee
not reported to the Senate.
Questions shall not anticipate discussion
upon an order of the day or other matter which appears on the Notice Paper.
The President may direct that the
language of a question be changed if it is not in conformity with the standing
orders.
These rules apply also to answers. For example, if a question may not
ask for a legal opinion, it follows that an answer may not give one.
The rule concerning
anticipation is not interpreted
narrowly because, if it
were, it could block questions on a wide variety of subjects. The practice is
to allow questions seeking information regarding matters on the Notice Paper
but which do not necessarily amount to anticipating discussion (statements by
President Reid, SD, 24/6/1999, p. 6307; 20/6/2002,
p. 2312; by President Calvert, SD, 17/10/2006, p. 36).
The rule that
questions shall not refer to proceedings in committee which have not been
reported to the Senate strictly refers to proceedings in committee of the
whole, although the same principle has been applied to other committees. The
prohibition, however, is not interpreted narrowly because, if it were, the rule
might block questions on a wide variety of subjects under consideration by
committees. The working rule is that senators should not be restricted from
asking questions on subjects which may be under examination by a committee,
provided that they do not refer to non‑public committee proceedings which
have not been reported to the Senate (rulings of President Laucke, SD,
26/8/1976, p.354; of Deputy President West, 22/9/1999, p.8654; of President
Calvert, SD, 17/10/2006, p. 36). President Laucke stated:
The rules have never been so
interpreted as to prevent from being answered a question about a particular
area which may or may not have a direct bearing on an inquiry currently
proceeding. Otherwise no questions could be asked in the Senate. An
interpretation which is not too rigid has to be made in a situation like this.
(ibid.)
The conduct of
members of either House should not be reflected on in a question (rulings of
President McMullin, SD, 12/11/1968, p. 1865; 25/8/1970, p. 154).
It is within the
discretion of the President to direct that long and involved questions be
placed on the Notice Paper (rulings of President O’Byrne, SD, 11/6/1975, p. 2488; of President Laucke, 22/3/1979, p. 876). See also the section on Questions
involving orders for returns, below.
In applying the
rule that a question shall not ask for a statement of government policy, in
most cases the chair leaves it to the minister to say whether a question
involves a statement of government policy. However, it has been ruled that it
is in order for a question:
-
to
seek an explanation of government policy (SD, 5/12/1989, p. 3879);
-
to
ask a minister about the effects of a proposal on the minister’s portfolio (SD,
4/10/1984, p. 1206);
-
to
ask about the government’s intentions and the reasons for those intentions (SD,
30/3/1987, p. 1438);
-
to
seek clarification of a statement made by a minister (18/2/1991, J.755; SD, 18/2/1991, p. 690).
A question which
invites a minister to comment on the policies or actions of non-government
parties is out of order unless the question seeks an expression of the
government’s intentions in some matter of ministerial responsibility (rulings
of President Sibraa, SD, 17/2/1987, p. 73; 30/3/1987, p. 1438; 17/5/1990, p.
554; 26/11/1991, p. 3296; of President Reid, SD, 9/9/1996, p. 3018; of President Calvert, SD, 10/9/2003, p.
14834; 1/3/2004, pp 20291-2; 26/3/2007, pp 34-5).
On 16 February 1956, a senator asked a
question without notice in which he made reference to the President of
Indonesia and to the government of that country. President McMullin held that the
remarks of the senator were not in order, and he ruled that, in the future,
such questions must be expressed in terms of appropriate dignity and courtesy
(SD, p. 23). This ruling was consistent with the practice in the British House
of Commons. On 19 March 1974 President Cormack disallowed a
question without notice on the ground that questions may not be asked, or terms
used in debate, which reflect on a head of state of a friendly country (SD,
19/3/1974, p. 361). These rulings have no basis in the standing orders, have not
been applied since that time, and do not reflect current practice.
The attachment
of the names of persons to circumstances in questions, when only the
circumstances need be mentioned, is not in accordance with the standing order
(statement by President Calvert, SD, 21/8/2002, p. 3467).
The President may
direct that the language of a question be changed if it is not in conformity
with the standing orders (SO 73(3)).
With respect to
questions on notice, the practice is as outlined to the Senate by President Givens on 25 September 1918 (SD, p. 6300):
before questions are permitted to be placed upon the Notice Paper, they are
examined by officers of the Senate, and anything which, in their opinion, is
doubtful is referred to the President for decision. The President may direct
the Clerk to alter any question so as to conform with the standing orders. If a
question contains material which does not conform to the standing orders
current practice is for an officer of the Senate to discuss the matter with the
senator who submitted it. The problem is usually resolved at this point by the
rephrasing or withdrawal of the question.
A question which
does not comply with the rules may not be placed on the Notice Paper (SD,
1/8/1917, p. 625; 10/4/1918, p. 3694; 26/6/1919, p. 10093; 16/7/1919, p.
10718). On 10 April 1918, President Givens disallowed a proposed question upon notice by Senator McDougall because it
contained statements and assertions and, in the opinion of the President, was
not asked solely for the purpose of eliciting information. The President
refused to allow the question to go on the Notice Paper. Soon after the meeting
of the Senate, Senator McDougall moved dissent from the ruling of the President. The
motion was negatived. During the debate, President Givens held that it was the duty of the President to protect
the privileges of senators by preventing the asking of improper questions (SD,
10/4/1918, p. 3694-5).
On 11 May 1950 President Brown ruled that “it is not permissible to quote from newspapers, books or periodicals when asking questions” (SD, 11/5/1950, p.
2419). During the debate on an unsuccessful motion of dissent from this ruling
the President stated: “At the moment it is competent for an honourable senator
to ask a question based upon a newspaper article, but not to read an extract
from the newspaper” (p. 2587). On 15 May 1969 (SD, p. 1270) President McMullin re-affirmed that questions may be based on newspaper
reports, but that quotations are not in order. In 1971 President Cormack ruled:
I remind the Senate that it has been
ruled on many occasions that, while questions may be based on newspaper or
other reports, quotations are not in order. The purpose of questions is to
obtain information. Questions should be brief so that as many as possible may
be asked within the time allotted. I therefore reaffirm that Senators must
frame their questions in such a way as not to contain quotations. (SD,
26/10/1971, p. 1444)
See also SD, 27/10/1971, p. 1472; 25/11/1971, p. 2106‑7; 28/9/1972, p. 1310. In
practice the chair exercises a discretion and may allow a senator to make a
quotation to the extent necessary to make the question clear.
Senators may amend
their questions on the Notice Paper to
clarify their terms (ruling of President Givens, SD, 28/9/1922, p. 2788).
Questions with or
without notice are permissible only for the purpose of obtaining information,
and answers are subject to the same limitation, that is, they are limited to
supplying the information asked for by the questions (rulings of President
Givens, SD, 17/5/1916, p. 7920; and of President Cormack, 1/3/1973, p. 90). Questions
would not only be in conformity with the standing orders, but would be more
effective and telling, if they were confined to properly framed questions, and
did not contain statements, assertions, allegations, insinuations and other
extraneous material (statement by President Calvert, SD, 6/12/2004, pp 36-7). In
answering a question, a senator must not debate it (SO 73(4)). Thus an answer
should be confined to giving the information asked for, and should not contain
any argument or comments. An answer must also be relevant to the question. On 22 August 1973 President Cormack ruled that in
answering a question:
the Minister should confine himself to
points contained in the question with such explanation only as will render the
answer intelligible. In all cases the answer must be relevant to the question.
(SD, p. 40)
However, should the Senate seek a full statement of a case, latitude is
allowed to a minister in answering a question; but if it is desired to debate
the matter, this should be done only on a specific motion (ruling of President Gould, SD, 10/12/1908, pp 2985-6).
In relation to relevance, the Procedure Committee in 1994 observed as follows:
It is clear that, in answering a
question, a minister must be relevant to the question. It is for the President
to make a judgment whether an answer is relevant to a question. If the answer
is not relevant, the President requires the minister to be relevant. (Second
Report of 1994, 10 November 1994, PP 223/1994, p. 3; see also statement by
President Beahan, SD, 23/10/1995, pp 2249-50)
Questions may be
put to a minister relating to the public affairs with which the minister is
officially connected, to proceedings pending in Parliament, or to any matter of
administration for which the minister is responsible in a personal or
representative capacity (ruling of President Sibraa, SD, 30/8/1988, pp 466-7). This is an overriding rule: that a question
must seek information, or press for action within a minister’s responsibility.
The chair will disallow any question where it is clear that it is not within a
minister’s responsibility. On 18 March 1976, President Laucke ruled that questions must relate to matters within
ministerial responsibility. He allowed a question to be put to a minister
on the understanding that the minister might reply only in so far as he
considered it his responsibility in any area covered by the question (SD, 18/3/1976,
p. 621). There are occasions, however, when it is difficult for the chair to
decide whether a matter comes within ministerial responsibility; in such cases,
according to President Young, “It is the right and responsibility of ministers in
this chamber to decide who will answer questions and in whose area of
responsibility a particular question lies” (SD, 12/11/1981, p. 2081). It
has been ruled that if no minister rises to answer a question it should be
placed on the Notice Paper (SD, 2/12/1965, pp 1979-80).
While questions
may be asked about ministers’ conduct as ministers, questions relating only to
the affairs of ministers’ spouses or relatives are not in order (statement by
President Calvert, SD, 4/12/2002, p. 7154).
A minister may reply to a question relating to matters for which the
minister is officially responsible in a personal or representative capacity
(ruling of President McClelland, SD, 19/2/1986, p. 603) and replies must be
confined to those areas of responsibility (rulings of Deputy President Hamer,
SD, 3/10/1984, p. 1110; of President McClelland, 17/2/1986, p. 409; and of
President Sibraa, 17/5/1990, p. 554). As has been noted,
ministers must accept full personal responsibility for answers given on behalf
of others, and ministers have been censured by the Senate on this basis (25/5/1989, J.1712; 10/5/1994, J.1641). It has
been ruled that it is not in order for a minister “to comment on how a State
public servant administers the affairs of a State department” (SD, 23/10/1986,
p. 1812). President Sibraa ruled that if the
Chair cannot detect any Commonwealth responsibility in an answer it is out of
order (SD, 3/10/1989, p. 1590-1).
It is not the
responsibility of the chair to tell ministers how they should respond to
questions: “That is purely a matter for Ministers, provided their answers are
within the standing orders” (ruling of President McClelland, SD, 11/9/1985, p. 449). It is in order for a minister to answer part
of a question without notice and ask that the remainder be placed on the Notice
Paper (ruling of President McMullin, SD, 15/10/1953, p. 559). During question time on 18 March 1980, a senator moved
that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent a minister
from giving the Senate a complete answer to a question. President Laucke ruled (SD,
18/3/1980, p. 715) the motion not in order as at question time it was the
prerogative of the minister to determine the manner in which he replied to a
question. Later, and after question time had been concluded, a motion was
proposed that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the
moving of a motion that the minister request the Prime Minister for real and
complete answers to certain questions; the motion was negatived.
It is also not for the chair to determine whether an answer is correct
(SD, 27/9/1988, p. 758; 4/12/1991, p. 4111; 11/12/1991, p. 4615). Challenges to
the accuracy of an answer should not take the form of a point of order (SD,
2/12/1991, p. 3742).
Questions may not
be directed to, or answered by, a parliamentary secretary in that capacity
(order first adopted 3/9/1991, J.1455-6).
Previous page | Contents | Next page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 2 February 2010 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
 |
