Page 1013 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Hanson: Mr Speaker, you cannot say you are going to wait for the answer to see whether the question is in order or not. You are ruling on the questions. You cannot then say, “Oh well, if the answer is this way or that way, that then has an effect on the question.” That is a ridiculous precedent and essentially would mean that we can ask what we like and then just wait for the answer before you can rule it in or out of order.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, I see your point, Mr Hanson. I think it is fifty-fifty, and that is why, as I often do with members, I am going to invite Ms Porter to reframe the question, as I have done with Mr Doszpot on a number of occasions.
Mr Smyth: To the point of order, Mr Speaker, it is about clarity on the ruling. The standing order that governs supplementary questions says that a supplementary cannot introduce new matter. The subject of the tourism awards was not in the original question or the original supplementary and so it is, indeed, introducing new matter. I think the awards are an interesting subject, and perhaps there should be questions, but the standing orders which govern the way supplementaries are answered make no reference to the minister’s answer tying it together; the question must tie it together. Under your own standing order 113B a supplementary question cannot introduce new matter and should be ruled totally out of order.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you for your feedback, Mr Smyth. As I often do in this place, I am going to give the member an opportunity to reframe the question because I think the intent is clear but perhaps formally is out of order. Ms Porter, you have the floor.
MS PORTER: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Minister, how did the Canberra Festival—
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order! One moment, Ms Porter. Thank you for your backchat, Mr Hanson. You are now warned for that. I have made it quite clear that on a number of occasions Mr Doszpot, for example, has been given the opportunity, as have other members of this chamber, to reframe his question. I have no interest in ruling members’ questions out of order, except when they are quite clearly and deliberately out of order, which happens from time to time. My intent is to give members the opportunity to ask their questions, as I do for members across this chamber, and your snide remarks are unwelcome.
Mr Hanson: Mr Speaker, if I could please correct the record; you just warned me. My comment was not related to the rephrasing of the question. My concern is that by your saying that you are going to wait—
MR SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, we are not debating this. This is an indulgence I am giving you.
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: I am withdrawing that indulgence. Sit down, Mr Hanson. Thank you. Sit down.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video