Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
[Volume:620;Page:15447] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It would seem to be difficult for you to indicate how you will interpret that last point because it will be a matter for judgment in relation to specific questions and specific answers and any objections thereto. 
I might say that in my experience over the last year or two we have seen many many more points of order in question time than we have ever seen previously and that has nothing to do with any changes in the nature of the answers being given. I suggest to you that in fact members might like to think a bit more carefully about some of the issues raised today. If we are to get into trying to judge answers too finely we might as well also start judging some of the questions being asked. Many of the questions being asked are so poorly framed that they are capable of interpretation in any number of different ways. For example a question last week about the growth in tax revenue was capable of being interpreted in a number of different ways. Strictly speaking the question was asking to provide a cumulative amount since the Government came into office. It would be impossible to provide that answer because the Government did not come into office at the end of a month which is the most minute form into which we break tax revenue down. We do not break it down into weeks or days. I make that point quite seriously because members opposite often ask very poorly framed questions and are then surprised that they do not get the answer they are looking for. 
I might also note that the public is probably somewhat bemused to discover that we have had an admission from the Opposition spokesperson that Opposition members ask questions that they already know the answer to. The public might wonder why these questions are therefore being asked. 
Secondly I have noticed a great increase in the asking of multiple questions—one two three four five even six questions are part of one question. If members care to read  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 they will find that the rule is that a Minister has to answer only one of those questions. So when the members claim they are only getting a partial answer they are often getting an answer to one or two parts of a multi-part question. There is no requirement upon Ministers to answer more than one part of a multi-part question. I remind members if they care to read Standing Order 370(1) again that the ruling does not stop after “must be given” as Mr Hide seemed to assume; he missed out “… if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” A reply “seeks to address the question asked”. It is quite a low-level test although it is one that incorporates a certain level of the Speaker’s interpretation of the mensrea involved in the Minister’s actions. 
Finally I might note that the time involved in question time has increased significantly. When I was first a member of Parliament 45 minutes was allowed for question time. If questions were not reached in that time it was hard luck and they were pushed to the next day. There was sometimes 4 or 5 days’ notice before they were reached. Therefore the art of Government was to try to ensure as few questions as possible were answered in a day. I think the record we got down to at one point was three questions being answered in a 45-minute period. That is why we changed the Standing Orders to provide for a specified number of questions. It does seem to be incumbent upon the Opposition parties in that situation to ensure that question time takes a reasonable amount of time otherwise the pressure will come back upon the Government to provide a time limit within which question time has to occur. That would not be in the interests of the good running of this Parliament. 
I have two final points. One is that there is nothing new in these points being raised. If members care to look up old Speakers’ rulings—not the most recent—they will find that Speakers’ rulings on some of these matters go back to the 19th century. So they should unburden themselves of the delusion that this is some kind of recent occurrence within Parliament. Finally whatever the rulings are I would argue that it is in the interests of this House for there to be some latitude of interpretation in question time. Mr Speaker you and I remember one question time when a former Speaker decided to engage in a particularly picky interpretation of every question being asked as to whether it was within the Standing Orders. My recollection is that one supplementary question was ruled as being in order on that particular day. This House runs on the basis of some latitude in interpretation otherwise we would spend all our lives on points of order and not on asking or answering questions.