Standing Orders

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (14:53): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking questions of you, Mr President, regarding standing orders of the Legislative Council.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: In the 52^nd Parliament, which ran from 2010 until 2013, as an example I asked 97 questions (of up to 10 questions per question) without notice and received only 37 answers, many of which were not answered in a substantial fashion. I know that this is only one example of the frustration that many of the members, particularly on the crossbench, feel when it comes to inadequate government response to questions.

We are now in the 53^rd Parliament, and many of the questions without notice I have asked in past months still remain unanswered many months after my having asked them. My question to you, Mr President, is: would you consider amendment of standing orders to place an expectation on the government to answer questions asked in a timely fashion?

The PRESIDENT (14:54): Standing Order No. 111 states that:

A Minister of the Crown may, on the ground of public interest, decline to answer a Question; and may, for the same reason, give a reply to a Question which, when called on, is not asked.

This has always been interpreted as allowing a minister of the Crown to answer a question however the minister wishes, but providing that the minister is not debating the answer. The issue of whether a question has been answered can be a subjective one and it would be very difficult for a chair to rule on such a point of order. So, really, it is not up to me to change the standing orders in relation to this matter.