Mr REITH (Minister for Industrial Relations)(3.34 p.m.) —The government opposes the dissent motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley). The opposition were, quite frankly, too quick. They were too impatient. I remind honourable members that the question which is the subject of this dissent motion was not the first question to the minister today; in fact, it was the fifth question to the Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Prosser) today.

There was a question from one of the independent members. That question was put to him and he answered it. There were then three questions put to the member which were generally on the subject matter which is now in dispute. He answered each and every one of those questions. In fact, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) rose on a point of order of a kind that one of those questions was out of order, and you ruled the question in order and required the minister to answer it.

This is a very technical issue. The question is whether or not the question that was asked was within the requirements of the standing orders. Before I answer that in detail, the simple facts are these. From a practical point of view, you ruled the question out of order. The opportunity to ask a question would then have gone to the government. Then it would have been the opposition's turn and they then could have asked a question which was in order.

This claim that this ruling of yours has prevented them asking questions of the minister is clearly false. First, he has been asked three questions, which he answered. Furthermore, he would have been answering further questions on this very issue if only those on the other side, Mr Speaker, with all the experience of sitting in your seat and running tactics on the other side, had only been smart enough to understand what the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) pointed out to them in his engaging question to you. The point he made to you was: if the question had been properly drafted, would you have allowed it to have been asked? And the obvious answer is yes.

They were just too quick. I have seen the Leader of the Opposition make many presentations. Today's was one of those rather more lacklustre presentations which betray that he does not have his heart in it. As a former Leader of the House, he well knows that on any fair reading of the standing orders the ruling that you gave was entirely consistent with many previous rulings by speakers in this house.

Mr Crean —Why?

Mr REITH —I will answer that question in some detail. Before I go to the technical arguments, Mr Speaker, you acted fairly, you acted properly and furthermore you acted consistently during question time. It says a lot about this opposition that they do not even understand how to use the standing orders to run an attack on a government minister. It is interesting that neither of the two speakers on the other side actually stood up in the House and repeated the question.

In fact, I leant over the bar table during the debate and said, `Would you give me a copy of the question?' The reply was, `Oh no, we are not going to give you a copy of the question.' I will tell you why you did not want to give us a copy of the question. It was because when you read it, it was obvious how out of order it was. This is the question:

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question again is to the Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs. Has the minister made any approach to or had contact with—

Mr Crean —`Has the minister'.

Mr REITH —No, no. I love this. As soon as I start to read out the question it is immediately obvious to them now that it left out a couple of words, so they are trying to put them in by interjection. Talk about CJO. I will read it out:

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question again is to the Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs. Has the minister made any approach to or had contact with any director of Coles Myer or with Western Australian planning ministers, both past or present, or their departments

in regard to any business in which he has a financial interest?

That was the question.

Mr Speaker, why is that question clearly defective and, therefore, why should your ruling be supported by the House? The first and obvious thing to say about this question is that it does not raise an issue of whether the minister can be asked questions about conflict of interest. In other words, it does not go to conflict of interest per se, on the face of the question.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr REITH —You left the words out. Listen. Your tactics committee is going to have to get up early and think a bit harder about its questions. You left that out.

The second thing is that, apart from the fact that you referred to the minister with `Minister, this is the question for you', there was no nexus with the minister's ministerial duties. Clearly on the face of the question there is no nexus with the minister's duties whatsoever. In fact, not only was there no direct reference, but when you look at the last words of the question—`in regard to any business in which he has a financial interest'—those words qualify the question and limit it to personal business matters only. In other words, nothing to do with his ministerial responsibilities.

Those are the facts. What are the rules? The rules on this are very clear. I direct members to House of Representatives Practice, page 509, on questions. It says:

The underlying principle is that Ministers are required to answer questions only on matters for which they are responsible to the Parliament. Consequently Speakers have ruled out of order questions to Ministers which concern, for example—

a number of examples are given—

statements, actions of decisions of the Minister's own party or of its conferences or officials, or of those of other parties, including opposition parties;

It is not that one.

statements by people outside the House, including other Members, notably opposition Members;

No, not that one.

statements in the House by other Members;

No, not that one.

Mr Crean —You sound like Peter Costello. It must be the 15-year thing, is it?

Mr REITH —No, it is all the practice barracking for the Bombers. We are getting a bit hoarse in the throat this year.

Mr Costello —How did the bombers go against North Melbourne?

Mr REITH —That is a very good question. As a matter of fact, Mr Speaker, that is a question that would be in order provided it was properly in a nexus to the minister's ministerial responsibilities.

Just to keep people's attention on the issue, House of Representatives Practice continues:

Consequently Speakers have ruled out of order questions to Ministers that concern, for example—

Mr Crean —Not that one either—

Mr REITH —I will read it slowly for you, Simon. I will read it slowly and clearly:

. . . anything of a private nature that is not related to the public duties of a Minister.

I had an interjection before which said, `Has anybody made such a ruling before?' For heaven's sake, read the House of Representatives Practice . It is there is black and white. You had no nexus; it was nothing to do with his ministerial responsibilities, and the question was clearly to financial personal interests of the minister.

Let me go on. This is an interesting little point that comes up in the House of Representatives Practice. It says:

As mentioned in the cases above, it is not in order for the personal conduct or private affairs of a Minister to be criticised by way of a question. A charge of a personal nature can only be raised by way of a direct and substantive motion. This fundamental parliamentary rule was re-iterated by Speaker Snedden . . .

It then goes on to give the quote.

There is another clue in this about the tactics. We had a number of questions on this issue yesterday. We sit here on the front bench and we get notes from our colleagues saying, `What is going to happen next? Are they going to do this or are they going to do that?' It was clear at the end of question time yesterday that they did not have enough for a censure motion. So we got no censure motion.

As for what we have got today, in the tactics meeting they said, `Admission, admission.' There was nothing to run for a censure motion. Today, they pick up the papers, they see the Australian editorial and they say, `Whoopee, we'll give it another run.' Do they run a censure motion? No. I would say that, in their tactics meeting this morning, the view would have been that it was quite clear that they did not have enough to run on a censure. The opportunity was provided today and an excuse was used. You did not have anything for a censure motion, so what do you do? You run an attack on the Speaker on the basis of a ruling that is as clear a ruling within the standing orders as I have ever seen in the whole time that I have been in this parliament.

The fact of the matter is that there is no substantive motion. The fact of the matter is that, if you had not been so impatient, you would have been able to ask that question if you had properly worded it. That is the position. What an embarrassment the member for Kalgoorlie has been to you over the years, but what an acute embarrassment he was today when he asked the Speaker a question, basically on a point of order, which said, `If the question had been properly drafted, Mr Speaker, would you have allowed the question to have been asked and therefore required it to be answered?'

What did you say, Mr Speaker? Not that I am in any way attempting to involve you in this debate, Mr Speaker; it would be improper to do so. But, Mr Speaker, knowing you well, in your response the sense of accommodation you are prepared to afford the member for Kalgoorlie makes it quite clear that you actually do know what the standing orders mean when it comes to questions of this sort. Mr Speaker, you had no hesitation in ruling the question out of order. You had been considering the issues because the right honourable member for New England had put the issue to you quite squarely in the previous question. You clearly had it in your mind that this was an issue that you might have to address during question time today.

I thought, with respect, Mr Speaker, without canvassing your views, that it was an option for you, in response to the member for New England, to in fact say, `Part of the question was in order and part of it was out of order.' But, Mr Speaker, you in your wisdom said, `No, the question was fair enough.' We accepted that ruling. Mr Speaker, in the hurly-burly of the House, you have a discretion in the handling of these matters. You exercised that discretion in what you believed was a manner fair and consistent with the standing orders and reasonable in all the circumstances for the House to have these matters properly before it. So on that matter, Mr Speaker, we accepted your ruling. I was not up on my feet saying, `The second part is out of order. You want to support the member for New England.' There was none of that nonsense. Why wasn't I on my feet? Because the minister was more than happy to answer the question. He has got nothing to hide. He has complied with the ministerial requirements. He has complied with the requirements of disclosure.

We have a lot of talk about this disclosure of the ministers which says apparently—I have not even read the thing—`Bunbury various lots'. That is in the minister's own personal name. The other allegation is that he did not list certain properties, but those properties were held by the company and there is no requirement for him to go into the assets of the company of which he is a proprietor. If there was, we would have had the piggery! Every last little piglet would have been on the disclosure form! Was that the requirement then? No, it was not. So old CJO is putting up a new form of pecuniary interest declaration which, of course, he wants now but never wanted when the piglets were in charge.

So, Mr Speaker, we reject this on a very substantial basis, that is, this is a motion to dissent from your ruling. Mr Speaker, we do not like all of your rulings; we do not like them all and we would be dishonest if we said anything otherwise. But, Mr Speaker, if I could not say that, you would not be an independent Speaker. Mr Speaker, the fact of the matter is you exercise your discretion; you do so in conformity with the standing orders and on an independent basis. You have done so today. As I have shown as a matter of logic, as a matter of precedent, as a matter of common sense and as a matter of consistency, in every possible way the ruling that you gave, Mr Speaker, was entirely a correct order. On that basis, we have no hesitation in rejecting this motion of dissent. And we reject this opposition that has used this motion as a means to attack an excellent minister, a person who has done a first-class job, and that is the Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs. (Time expired)