Standing Committee on Procedure
Report
Introduction
1. Standing order 143 provides:
Questions may be put to a Member, not being a Minister or an Assistant
Minister, relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected
with the business of the House, of which the Member has charge.
2. Following
two questions under this standing order in September 1995 to the then
Leader of the Opposition, the House voted to suspend the operation of
the standing order for the remainder of that period of sittings.
3. The then
Leader of the House, Hon K C Beazley, wrote to the Procedure Committee
asking it to consider the application of the standing order.
4. The committee's
consideration of the matter was interrupted by the dissolution of the
House and the general election. On 20 June 1996 the Procedure Committee
of the new Parliament resolved to pursue an inquiry into the operation
of standing order 143.
5. The committee
wrote to the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition to seek
their views. Mr Reith and Mr Crean (the Manager of Opposition Business
responding on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition) were both of the
view that standing order 143 should be retained in its present form. The
letters are reproduced in the appendix.
6. Standing
order 143 has provided for Members to ask questions of other Members `relating
to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business
of the House of which the Member has charge' since March 1950. From the
time the House adopted temporary standing orders in June 1901 until the
House revised the standing orders in March 1950 standing order 92 [1]
provided for questions to be asked of both Ministers and private Members.
7. Standing
order 143 has not been used frequently. Since the adoption of the provision
(as standing order 92) in 1901, Members have, under the standing order,
directed questions without notice to Members who were not Ministers on
18 occasions. On 10 of these occasions the questions were put by opposition
Members to opposition Members, five of these to the Leader of the Opposition.
The following table summarises the information pertaining to each occasion
the standing order has been used.
| Year |
Summary |
Hansard Reference |
| 1903 |
An ALP Member asked an ALP Member if he had been invited
to rejoin the (Protectionist) Ministry. |
H.R.Deb.(29.7.03)
2747-8
|
| 1948 |
The Leader of the Opposition asked the Chair of the
Privileges Committee when he expected the committee to report on a
particular matter. |
H.R.Deb.(18.2.48) 6 |
| 1951 |
A government Member asked the Leader of the Opposition
about the rebroadcast of an opposition Senator's speech on Radio
Moscow. |
H.R.Deb.(10.7.51)
1178-9
|
| 1952 |
A government Member asked the Leader of the Opposition
about the loyalty and integrity (anti-communism) of opposition Members
and candidates. |
H.R.Deb.(3.6.52)
1234
|
| 1953 |
A government Member asked the Leader of the Opposition
about an occasion the opposition refused leave for a Minister to make
a statement on the Katyn Forest massacre in the USSR. |
H.R.Deb.(4.3.53)
503-4
|
| 1955 |
A government Member asked a government Member about
the activities of the Commonwealth-State Flood Relief Committee on
which he was the Commonwealth's representative. |
H.R.Deb.(5.5.55)
438
|
| 1957 |
An opposition Member asked the Chair of the Public
Accounts Committee whether the Government had requested the Committee
to inquire into a particular matter. |
H.R.Deb.(16.10.57)
1393-4
|
| 1972 |
A government Member asked the Deputy Leader of the
Opposition about a private Members' bill (National Service Bill 1971).
The Chair ruled that the Member was entitled to ask for information
on a specific clause. |
H.R.Deb.(1.3.72)
410-2
|
| 1976 |
A government Member asked an opposition Member about
a private Members' bill he had given notice to present relating to
the disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates. |
H.R.Deb.(25.2.76)
259
|
| 1976 |
An opposition Member asked an opposition Member about
a private Members' bill he had given notice to present relating to
corporations and securities. The Chair ruled the answer out of order
when the Member made points which could be made in the second reading
speech. |
H.R.Deb.(26.2.76)
313-5
|
| 1976 |
The Leader of the Opposition asked an opposition Member
about a private Members' bill he had given notice to present relating
to the disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates.
The Chair ruled the answer out of order when the Member made points
which could be made in the second reading speech. |
H.R.Deb.(16.3.76)
625-6
|
| 1982 |
The Leader of the Opposition asked an opposition Member
about a private Members' bill she had given notice to present relating
to telecommunications legislation. The Chair restricted the Member's
answer to procedural details relating to the drafting and presentation
of the bill. |
H.R.Deb.(6.5.82)
2336-7
|
| 1984 |
An opposition Member asked an opposition Member about
a private Members' bill he had given notice to present relating to
health legislation. The Chair ruled the answer out of order when the
Member made points which could be made in the second reading speech. |
H.R.Deb.(28.3.84)
928-9
|
| 1984 |
An opposition Member asked the Leader of the Opposition
about a private Members' bill he had presented (National Crime Authority
Amendment Bill 1984). The Chair ruled that the Member was entitled
to ask for information on a specific clause. |
H.R.Deb.(5.10.84)
1763-4
|
| 1984 |
An opposition Member asked the Leader of the Opposition
about a private Members' bill he had presented (National Crime Authority
Amendment Bill 1984). The Chair ruled that the Member was entitled
to ask for information on a specific clause. |
H.R.Deb.(9.10.84)
1897-8
|
| 1995 |
An opposition Member asked the Leader of the Opposition
to explain sections of a private Members' bill he had presented (Sydney
Airport Curfew (Air Navigation Amendment) Bill 1995). The response
discussed Government policy and referred to a Government bill on a
similar subject which was then before the House. |
H.R.Deb.(26.9.95)
1692-5
|
| 1995 |
An opposition Member asked the Leader of the Opposition
whether he intended to withdraw a private Members' bill he had presented
(Sydney Airport Curfew (Air Navigation Amendment) Bill 1995). The
answer canvassed the reasons why the bill was not to be withdrawn. |
H.R.Deb.(28.9.95)
1988-90
|
| 1996 |
An opposition Member asked the Leader of the Opposition
for clarification of the intention of a private Members' bill he had
presented (Trade Practices (Better Business Conduct) Bill 1996). The
answer canvassed the Government's policy. |
H.R.Deb.(19.6.96)
2252-3
|
8. On two other
occasions (1903 [2] and 1969 [3])
questions were asked of private Members with the indulgence of the Chair
who had ruled that the questions did not come within the ambit of standing
order 143.
9. In general
terms the way the standing order has been applied over the years has been
to allow questions to be asked:
- of a Member sponsoring an item of private Members' business about
procedural matters in connection with the item, for example, in the
case of a bill, when it would be introduced, whether it had been drafted,
or whether the questioner could see a copy of the bill;
- of a committee chair concerning, for example, whether or when the
committee intended to report on a matter; or
- of a Member who was serving as a parliamentary representative on a
statutory body about matters concerning that body.
10. Rulings
over the years have fairly consistently confined questions to private
Members and their answers to procedural or factual matters and not matters
of substantive debate. Prior to the 1995 instances, rulings had tightly
confined questions on private Members' bills and motions to matters of
timing, procedure and, occasionally, to brief explanations of a particular
clause of a bill.
11. The 1995
questions to the Leader of the Opposition on his private Member's bill
complied with all previous rulings on standing order 143. However, in
answering the question asked on 26 September 1995 the Leader of the Opposition
canvassed wider areas such as the purpose of the bill and the history
and motivation behind the Government's formulation of policy on the issue.
In answering the question asked on 29 September 1995 the Leader of the
Opposition again went well beyond the scope of the question. Both the
question asked of, and the answer given by, the Leader of the Opposition
on 19 June 1996 were outside the limits which had applied prior to 1995.
12. The standing
order has not been interpreted in such a way as to allow questions to
parliamentary secretaries. In outlining thhe functions of parliamentarysecretaries
in 1987 the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, made it clear that they would
not be able to answer questions [4]. This position
was reiterated by the then Leader of the House, Mr Beazley, when moving
a motion in 1990 setting out the application of the standing orders to
parliamentary secretaries [5]. (The 1990 resolution
was reaffirmed in 1993 by a resolution which continues in force [6].)
The committee is of the view that this should be the case and parliamentary
secretaries should not be asked questions.
Is any change needed?
13. Questions
under standing order 143 are unusual and infrequent. Over the 95 years
since federation very little time of the House has been spent on questions
to private Members. For two questions to be asked on the same subject
within a short period as occurred in 1995 is entirely consistent with
the earlier operation of standing order 143. During both 1976 and 1984
three questions were asked under standing order 143 and in each year two
questions within a short period related to the same issue.
14. On all
occasions prior to 1995 the answers were brief and strictly limited. If
the 1996 precedent, when considerable latitude was permitted to both question
and answer, remains unchallenged, similar occurrences may be encouraged.
There is a danger that standing order 143 could become seen as providing
a `normal' opposition opportunity for criticism of government legislation
and the debate of alternative proposals, that is, an alternative or additional
second reading debate.
15. The committee
considered four possible courses of action.
16. Standing
order 143 could be revised to define more tightly what is permitted in
the course of answering a question. In the past, the effect of standing
orders 143 and 144 has combined to provide Members an adequate opportunity
to question each other on a wide range of matters without unduly consuming
the time of the House. It is important to ensure that the capacity to
question Members on matters of legitimate concern to other Members and
the House is not restricted.
17. Mr Beazley,
as Leader of the House in his initial letter to the committee, suggested
that a dedicated time could be set aside for questions on private Members'
business, committee activity and, possibly, the activities of Parliamentary
Secretaries. However there are a number of difficulties with setting aside
such a period.
18. Most Members
who are not Ministers would need to be present in the Chamber for the
question period if it were to be a workable and genuine period for questions
without notice. There is no way to predict whether sufficient Members
would attend such a period and a Member might be able to avoid an unwelcome
question by not attending.
19. Another
outcome might be that Members would begin to ask each other questions
relating to private Members' and committee business which would ultimately
come before the House for debate in any event. The regular allocation
of time for private Members' business and the operation of the Selection
Committee ensure that most items in which there is general interest are
brought on for debate. There is little to be gained in encouraging questions
on private Members' business which could see perhaps 45 minutes of the
House's time expended each week. The committee considers that setting
aside a specific period when only 20 questions have been asked of private
Members in 95 years is not warranted.
Delete the standing order
20. One argument
put forward was that the new arrangements for private Members' business
make questions to private Members unnecessary and that the standing order
could be deleted.
21. Some Members
have responsibilities which are legitimately of interest to other Members
and of concern to the House. For example, many Members serve as chair
or deputy chair of a committee or on parliamentary delegations and a few
serve on the boards of statutory bodies. Members' conduct and activities
in these arenas should be open to the scrutiny of other Members and questions
are a useful mechanism to enable this.
22. The fourth
option considered by the committee was to leave the standing order intact.
Conclusion
23. The committee
is of the view that standing order 143 upholds an important concept —
that private members must be responsible for the business they bring before
the House and should be able to be questioned about it. The provision
has been used sparingly over the years and for the most part has not been
abused.
24. The committee
recommends:
That standing order 143 be retained in its present form.
25. The committee
is also of the view that the limitations on the scope of questioning of
private Members which had traditionally applied should be enforced. Issues
of substance and policy are addressed more appropriately in debate (such
as a second reading debate on a bill) than in a question without notice.
This philosophy is recognised in standing order 144 which provides that
questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an order of the day or other
matter.
Kathy Sullivan
Chair
12 September 1996
Footnotes
- 1 92. After Notices have been given Questions
may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs; and
to other Members relating to any Bill, Motion, or other public matter
connected with the business on the Notice Paper, of which such Members
may have charge.
- 2 H.R.Deb.(18.8.03) 3728-9
- 3 H.R.Deb.(10.9.69) 1031-2
- 4 H.R.Deb.(15.9.87) 43
- 5 H.R.Deb.(9.5.90) 155
- 6 That: (1) for the purposes of the procedures
of the House, any reference to Ministers shall be taken to include Parliamentary
Secretaries, with the exception of references to questions seeking information
(chapter XI of the standing orders); and (2) this resolution continue
in force unless and until amended or rescinded by the House in this
or a subsequent Parliament. (Votes and Proceedings 1993-96/25)
Back to top