

- Title
STANDING ORDERS
- Database
Senate Hansard
- Date
17-11-2010
- Source
Senate
- Parl No.
43
- Electorate
PO
- Interjector
- Page
1409
- Party
N/A
- Presenter
- Status
Final
- Question No.
- Questioner
- Responder
- Speaker
PRESIDENT, The
- Stage
- Type
- Context
Miscellaneous
- System Id
chamber/hansards/2010-11-17/0003


Previous Fragment Next Fragment
-
Hansard
- Start of Business
- STANDING ORDERS
-
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL PREVENTIVE HEALTH AGENCY BILL 2010
-
In Committee
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta
- Division
- Procedural Text
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta
- Siewert, Sen Rachel
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Xenophon, Sen Nick
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta
- McLucas, Sen Jan
- Third Reading
-
In Committee
- NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS SCHEME) BILL 2010
- MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
- ROYAL ENGAGEMENT
- DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
- ROYAL ENGAGEMENT
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
- DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
-
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
-
Tourism
(Furner, Sen Mark, Sherry, Sen Nick) -
Computers in Schools Program
(Mason, Sen Brett, Evans, Sen Chris) -
Indigenous Employment
(Siewert, Sen Rachel, Arbib, Sen Mark) -
Forestry
(Colbeck, Sen Richard, Ludwig, Sen Joe) -
Research
(Pratt, Sen Louise, Carr, Sen Kim) -
National Security
(Trood, Sen Russell, Ludwig, Sen Joe) -
Television Sports Broadcasts
(Fielding, Sen Steve, Conroy, Sen Stephen) -
Marine Sanctuaries
(Boswell, Sen Ron, Conroy, Sen Stephen) -
Homelessness
(Polley, Sen Helen, Arbib, Sen Mark) -
Murray-Darling Basin
(Troeth, Sen Judith, Conroy, Sen Stephen)
-
Tourism
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
- STANDING ORDERS
- NOTICES
- COMMITTEES
- 1999 GST AGREEMENT
- COMMITTEES
- NON BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS
- COMMITTEES
- DR ROBERTA ‘BOBBI’ SYKES
- MR LIU XIAOBO
- CREDIT CARD SURCHARGING
- BURMA AND DAW AUNG SAN SUU KYI
- BROADBAND
- COMMITTEES
- MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
- COMMITTEES
- DOCUMENTS
-
COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL AMENDMENT (POLITICAL DONATIONS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2010
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMPETITION AND CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS) BILL 2010
TERRITORIES LAW REFORM BILL 2010 - HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT (FEE-HELP LOAN FEE) BILL 2010
- INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
-
COMMITTEES
- Cyber-Safety Committee
- Parliamentary Library Committee
- Legislation Committees
- Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
- Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
- Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
- Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
- NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS SCHEME) BILL 2010
- DOCUMENTS
- ADJOURNMENT
- Adjournment
- DOCUMENTS
- QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Page: 1409
The PRESIDENT (9:31 AM)
—Yesterday in question time, Senator Abetz raised a point of order about the application of the relevance rule under the standing orders, as modified by the Senate’s temporary order on question time, which requires answers to be directly relevant to a question. Senator Bob Brown also asked that I look at questions asked in the early part of question time yesterday to assess whether they conformed with standing order 73, which, as all senators know, provides rules for questions.
Regardless of whether the requirement is for relevance or direct relevance, I cannot direct a minister how to answer a question. Provided that an answer is directly addressing the subject matter of a question, it is not within the power of the chair to require a minister to provide a particular answer.
The problem with question time at the moment seems to be that senators have an expectation of receiving the specific answer that they have in mind and, when they do not receive that answer, they raise points of order. I have ruled consistently, as presidents before me have done, that it is not within my power to require a minister to provide a particular answer.
I also wish to address a misconception about the powers of the chair in enforcing the standing orders in the context of requests made to me during points of order to sit ministers down. As all senators should know, the only basis on which a senator with the call may be interrupted is for a point of order or a point of privilege. When a point of order is raised, the chair assesses the validity of a point of order and makes a ruling which is designed to draw an offending senator back within the scope of what the standing orders permit. Provided that a senator is complying with the standing orders, the chair has no basis to withdraw the call except to restore order.
Finally, I remind senators that standing order 73 provides that questions shall not contain arguments, inferences, imputations, ironical expressions or hypothetical matter, among other things, and shall not ask for expressions of opinion or statements of the government’s policy. If senators observed these rules more closely in seeking information from ministers, there might be less cause for dissatisfaction with the answers.