Download Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 15                                                 p 552

Content of answers

The standing orders and practice of the House have been criticised in that restrictions similar to those applying to the form and content of questions do not apply to answers. For instance, Ministers have not been prevented from introducing argument into their answers. Although it has been argued that the standing order provision that ‘questions cannot be debated’ should be read as meaning a prohibition of debate in answering, as well as in putting, a question, it has not been so interpreted by the Chair. ¹

The only provision in the standing orders which deals specifically with the form and content of answers to questions is the requirement that an answer must be relevant to the question. ² The latitude permitted to Ministers has often been quite considerable in the House of Representatives. Speakers have ruled consistently that provided the answer is relevant and is not couched in unparliamentary language Ministers may virtually answer questions without notice in any way they choose.

Even though a question may invite a ‘yes or no’ answer, Members cannot demand that an answer be in such terms. ³ Further, the Speaker has remarked that, where a question has a preamble or a quotation of some length, it is not reasonable for a Member to conclude with a short sharp question and to then claim that the answer should be limited to the contents of the conclusion. ⁴

The interpretation of ‘relevant’ has at times been very wide, ⁵ with a basic requirement being that an answer must maintain a link to the substance of the question. ⁶ In practice the word has been frequently accepted by the Chair as meaning relevant in some way or relevant in part, rather than directly or completely relevant. Nevertheless, although the test of relevance can be difficult to apply, Ministers have been ordered to conclude their answers or resume their seats as their answers were not relevant. ⁷ The Chair has also upheld points of order or intimations contesting the relevancy of a Minister’s answer, ⁸ for example, directing a Minister to ‘come to the question’. ⁹ Such instances have, however, been somewhat rare. It has been held that a Minister ‘should not engage in irrelevances’, such as contrasting the Government and Opposition, and the Speaker has directed a Minister so doing not to proceed. ¹⁰ On other occasions such comments have been permitted, ¹¹ although a question should not ask a Minister about opposition policy as the Minister is not responsible for it.

Speakers have noted that the standing orders concerning questions and answers did not provide a complete statement of the rules governing Question Time—for example, the sub judice rule and the prohibitions on the use of offensive words, imputations, etc. apply to answers. ¹² However, Speakers have not accepted that the provisions of standing order 75, dealing with irrelevance and tedious repetition in debate, apply to answers. ¹³ In any case, standing order 75 suggests an earlier intervention of the Chair. Its application is at the discretion of the Speaker and not the opinion of an individual. It is considered nevertheless that the Chair has sufficient authority to deal with irrelevance or tedious repetition in answers.

The issue of anticipation has also arisen in respect to answers. When answering questions Ministers have been directed to keep away from specific provisions of legislation to come before the House later in the day. ¹⁴

In 1986 the Procedure Committee recommended that standing orders be amended to provide that answers to questions must be relevant, not introduce matter extraneous to the question and should not contain arguments, imputations, epithets, ironical expressions or discreditable references to the House or any Member thereof or any offensive or unparliamentary expressions. ¹⁵ The Procedure Committee of a later Parliament (1992) while not in favour of such strict provisions, nevertheless recommended that the relevant standing order be amended to read ‘The answer to a question without notice (a) shall be concise and confined to the subject matter of the question, and (b) shall not debate the subject to which the question refers’. ¹⁶ No action was taken by the House on either of the recommendations. In revisiting the subject in 1993 the Procedure Committee of the 37th Parliament concluded that, however much the requirements of the standing orders were to be tightened up, relevance would continue to be a matter of opinion, and that significant change in the nature of answers would depend more on changes of attitudes than on changes to rules. ¹⁷

H.R. Deb. (4.5.87) 2487; H.R. Deb. (12.5.87) 2972.

S.O. 104. May states ‘An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted to Ministers of the Crown’. May, 23rd edn, p. 354.

H.R. Deb. (29.6.99) 7680.

H.R. Deb. (29.6.2000) 18718; H.R. Deb. (7.12.2000) 23809.

H.R. Deb. (10.9.81) 1158.

H.R. Deb. (29.6.2000) 18718.

H.R. Deb. (13.9.79) 1077-9; H.R. Deb. (18.9.80) 1470; H.R. Deb. (24.5.88) 2863; H.R. Deb. (9.3.99) 3438; H.R. Deb. (6.9.2000) 20270, 20271; H.R. Deb. (20.6.2002) 4072.

H.R. Deb. (22.8.79) 429; H.R. Deb. (25.8.88) 382-4; H.R. Deb. (11.2.99) 2508-12, 2519; H.R. Deb. (17.2.99) 3006;  

H.R. Deb. (9.3.99) 3438.

H.R. Deb. (11.10.99) 11202, 11203; H.R. Deb. (13.5.2003) 13977.

H.R. Deb. (27.8.81) 856, 857; H.R. Deb. (9.9.81) 1063-4.

E.g. H.R. Deb. (10.9.81) 1160; H.R. Deb. (4.4.84) 1352; H.R. Deb. (24.11.88) 3208; H.R. Deb. (17.8.2000) 19277-8.

H.R. Deb. (28.11.88) 3329, and s ee statement by Speaker Andrew, H.R. Deb. (7.12.2000) 23809.

H.R. Deb. (28.11.88) 3329; H.R. Deb. (28.6.2000) 18475-6.

H.R. Deb. (24.11.88) 3210-12; H.R. Deb. (9.5.91) 3402; and see H.R. Deb. (9.12.2004) 81-2. However, note suspension of S.O. 100(f) see p. 542.

PP 354 (1988) 45.

PP 179 (1992) 15.

PP 194 (1993) 22-3. At the time of publication no action had been taken to implement the recommendations.