Mr SPEAKER —On 26 March 1997, I advised members that I would make a statement to the House on the content of questions asked without notice, the length and relevance of answers to those questions, and the use of points of order especially during question time.

These issues are not new. They have been around for a long time—during the administration of a number of governments of different political persuasions and the tenure of several Speakers. They have been the subject of inquiry and report by several standing committees on procedure, although the House has failed to act on many of the recommendations made by those committees. It is against that background that I set out my views on some of these matters.

Standing orders 142 to 144 contain provisions in relation to the content of questions. These are clear and generally well understood. However, difficulties arise when members begin their questions with a long preamble, or their questions actually contain a whole series of questions.

These practices are clearly unacceptable, and I intend to apply a much firmer test to such matters in the future. There will be occasions, of course, when a short preface may be necessary—but lengthy introductory statements will not be tolerated. Furthermore, as a general rule, questions containing multiple parts should more properly be placed on the Notice Paper for written response.

These views have been formed for a number of reasons. Firstly, long prefaces generally introduce debating points or arguments and have little, if anything, to do with genuinely seeking information, which questions are supposed to do. Secondly, lengthy questions often invite lengthy answers. Thirdly, wide-ranging or multipart questions can result in equally wide-ranging responses, the relevance of which may be rather tenuous.

Although there are quite well defined rules applying to the asking of questions, the only standing order relating to answers to questions is standing order 145, which provides that: `An answer shall be relevant to the question.' Over many years, questions have been asked and statements made by the chair and others on the interpretation of `relevant'. Difficulties with relevance have often—but certainly not always—arisen because of the broad ranging nature of the question asked.

As is stated in House of Representatives Practice, page 522, the interpretation of `relevant' has at times been very wide. 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. Rather than adopting strict definitions for terms which have traditionally been open to wide and differing interpretations, I propose to apply a commonsense approach to these issues. I expect questions to be specific, and answers to be relevant.

If in my view a question is too long or too wide ranging, or an answer goes beyond what is reasonably appropriate, I intend to intervene. Members will not always agree with my judgment. However, I will endeavour to ensure everyone concerned is treated fairly and impartially.

I turn now to the practice of members raising points of order during ministers' answers to questions. In my view, many points of order seek to disrupt the giving of an answer and/or to make debating points rather than being bona fide points of order challenging some aspect of proceedings. Genuine points of order have their proper place, but members who persistently raise frivolous or deliberately disruptive points of order should be dealt with firmly.

In future, I intend as far as possible, to adopt the following approach when addressing these concerns. In regard to questions without notice:

If I consider that as a preface to—or in the course of asking—a question, a member is attempting to debate or respond, as distinct from merely referring, to the substance of an answer to a previous question, I propose to rule the question out of order and proceed to the next question.

Members should restrict themselves to one substantive question at a time. Multipart questions which in my view are in effect short speeches or statements will be ruled out of order.

I accept that it has been common practice over the years for ministers to contrast the government's actions and policies with those of the opposition. I am also aware that when an opposition question is long and wide ranging it is not difficult for a minister's answer to satisfy the relevance requirement.

Bearing these points in mind, I intend to require that a minister does not unduly digress from the point of the question directed to him or her, nor should the response be unreasonably long—otherwise I will require the minister to conclude the answer and resume his or her seat.

In regard to points of order:

A member who seeks to take a point of order should confine his or her comments to relevant procedural issues and not attempt to comment on or debate issues of substance. Members who persistently fail to comply with this requirement can expect to be dealt with under standing order 304A.

Where I have ruled that there is no point of order and/or have directed a member to resume his or her seat, and the member fails to do so immediately and without further comment, that member can also expect to be dealt with under standing order 304A.

Obviously, I reserve the right to take such further or other action as I may consider to be appropriate to the circumstances of a particular situation. I would also like to remind members of the requirement that all remarks be addressed through the chair.

Finally, I take this opportunity to express my concern that the House is too often far too noisy. Whilst the standing orders remain as they are currently drafted, I intend to be more stringent in exercising my prerogative to take action, subject to—in most cases—the usual general warning, if and when I consider the conduct of a member or members to be unparliamentary or disorderly.

I want to encourage a free and robust question time. But there must be rules. My role is to enforce them. In the absence of other direction by the House, I will endeavour to give effect to the proposals I have outlined. In doing so, I trust I can rely on the support of all members.

Mr Price —Could I get a copy, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER —A copy is available in my office for those who need it.