Save Search
    Prev   Next   Return to results listPrint ListEmail Document Link

Title

Ch15 Questions / RULES GOVERNING QUESTIONS / Form and content of questions / Identification of people in questions

Database

House Practice

Date

01-05-2005

Source

House of Reps

Parl No.

41

Chapter

Questions

Chapter No.

Chapter 15

Page

544

Section No.

 

System Id

procedural/practcer/chapter15.31.doc


Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Ch15 Questions / RULES GOVERNING QUESTIONS / Form and content of questions / Identification of people in questions



Download WordDownload Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 15                                                 p 544

 

Questions / RULES GOVERNING QUESTIONS / Form and content of questions

 

Identification of people in questions

Questions must not contain na mes of persons unless they can be authenticated and are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible. 1 A question with or without notice which is laudatory of a named individual 2 or contains the name of an individual in order to render the question intelligible is permissible. 3 A Member has been warned after repeating the name of a person in a question after the Speaker had stated that the inclusion of the name was not necessary, 4 and a Minister has been asked to ignore a sentence in a question containing the name of a person. 5

Questions must not reflect on or be critical of the character or conduct of a member of either House, 6 the Queen, the Governor-General, 7 a State Governor, or a member of the judiciary. 8 Their conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion. 9 This rule applies to both questions without notice and questions in writing.

Questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons must be in writing. 10 Although this rule is generally applied to named persons, it has also been applied to unnamed, but readily identifiable, persons. 11 Such questions may, however, be placed on the Notice Paper. The purpose of the rule is to protect a person against criticism which could be unwarranted. A question in writing does not receive the same publicity and prominence as a question without notice and the reply can be more considered.

The standing orders do not prevent criticism of Ministers or others in high office but rather preclude such criticism from being aired in questions. 12 A substantive motion relevant to the criticism must be moved so that the House may then debate the criticism and make its decision. 13 It has been held that once the House has made a decision on the matter, further questions, whether containing criticism or not, are out of order on the ground that the House has made its determination. 14 In modern practice, in matters such as the actions of a Member of the Government, questions having a somewhat critical cast have been permitted although the House may have made a decision on the matter. 15

In 1976 Speaker Snedden, referring to a question about the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, said:

I have ruled that the reference in May’s Parliamentary Practice which would prevent even the mention of such an office holder . . . is far too restrictive and that there can be discussion about such an office holder provided that the discussion relates to a statement as to whether the actions were right or wrong, is conducted in a reasonable fashion and does not attribute motive to or involve criticism of the office holder. 16

Although not specifically referred to in the standing orders, it has been a practice of the House that opprobrious reflections may not be cast in questions on rulers or governments of Commonwealth countries or other countries friendly with Australia, or on their representatives in Australia. 17 The application of this rule has, however, tended to vary according to particular considerations at the time. A recommendation by the Standing Orders Committee to include such a requirement in the standing orders was rejected by the House in 1963. 18 In 1986 the Procedure Committee stated its opinion that the rule was unduly restrictive and recommended it be discontinued, 19 but no action was taken on this recommendation.



S.O. 100(d).



See H of R 1 (1962-63) 33.



H.R. Deb. (4.11.77) 2882.



H.R. Deb. (20.8.2002) 5188, and, for example, see H.R. Deb. (20.6.2001) 28095.



H.R. Deb (20.8.2002) 5199.



E.g. H.R. Deb. (30.5.78) 2721; H.R. Deb. (4.6.2003) 16005-6.



H.R. Deb. (7.10.76) 1622. Questions have been permitted concerning matters in which a Governor-General had been involved before appointment to the office, e.g. H.R. Deb. (13.5.2003) 13961-74.



May , 23rd edn, pp. 347, 386-7.



S.O. 100(c).



S.O. 100(c). E.g. H.R. Deb. (4.3.98) 400; H.R. Deb. (1.12.2003) 23299-300.



H.R. Deb. (5.4.79) 1560.



H.R. Deb. (23.11.78) 3333.



See Ch. on ‘Motions’.



H.R. Deb. (16.11.78) 2892.



E.g. H.R. Deb. (20.10.99) 11982 (critical reference in question the day after a censure motion was defeated); and see H.R. Deb. (7.12.2000) 23808-10.



H.R. Deb. (7.10.76) 1628-9.



VP 1951-53/117; H.R. Deb. (10.10.51) 459-60.



VP 1962-63/455.



PP 354 (1986) 32.