HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Procedure

MEMBER'S TRAVEL REPORT

The SPEAKER (15:34): Just before I call for grievances, on Thursday 4 June during question time, the member for Mount Gambier received the call to ask a question without notice. The member for Mount Gambier addressed his question to the member for Hammond. That in itself is a rare occurrence as the house has allowed questions to members who are not ministers or chairmen of committees of the house only if the question relates to a matter for which the member is responsible to the house. Standing order 96(2) states:

Questions may be put to other members but only if such questions relate to any bill, motion or other public business for which those members, in the opinion of the Speaker, are responsible to the house.

It has been the practice of this house that the practical limitation of this standing order is to allow questions to chairs of committees and to private members relating to matters of business on the Notice Paper standing in the name of that member that are not of a nature that would be regarded as anticipating debate on those matters.

The principle underlining the practice is clear. Ministers have an authority derived from the Crown and members appointed to chair committees of this house exercise an authority derived from this parliament. Both are accountable to the house for the exercise of that delegated authority. Members are not responsible within the meaning of standing order 96 to the house for their activities as private members. However, I stress that that is not to say that private members are not responsible to the house in other ways.

I return to the matter of my ruling on the question from the member for Mount Gambier to the member for Hammond to illustrate the last point. First, the chair was in the difficult position of not being able to rule on the admissibility of the question without hearing the question. The question related to the activities of the member for Hammond while undertaking his parliamentary duties as a private member. The nature of the question meant that the member was not responsible to the house for the purposes of being asked questions concerning public business, given the longstanding application of standing order 96 by this house.

However, in fairness to the member for Hammond, and given that the question was already on the record, I was loath to prevent the member from responding, in the light of its implications. Further, I was not inclined to disallow it and have the house and the public believe that the chair was of the view that the member had no responsibility to the house, and the wider community, for the use of public funds, provided to all members for the purposes of undertaking their parliamentary duties.

Members are provided with access to funds for the purposes of travel to undertake study tours and site inspections, and to attend meetings relating to their parliamentary duties. This is not a parliamentary entitlement, but one of a number of facilities provided by the executive to assist members in their work. The compliance measures in relation to this entitlement are set out in the travel rules and the entitlement, in this case, is administered by the Speaker. The member for Hammond has complied with those measures.

Further, the Speaker has added an increased level of transparency by having the required travel reports, and an annual report on the costs associated with every member's use of the entitlement, published on the parliament's website.

To the extent that the member for Hammond may be administratively accountable to the house in relation to the matters raised in the question asked by the member for Mount Gambier, he has fulfilled those obligations. Issues of substance, such as those raised by the member for Mount Gambier in his question, are more appropriately addressed in debate by way of substantive motion.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:36): Mr Speaker, given your ruling, it is clear that you are going to accept questions only to members of the government and/or chairs of committees, who are, of course, appointed by the parliament and not the government—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: People who are performing committee duties. My question is: do you propose to allow that questions to chairs of committees, appointed by this parliament, in undertaking their business and reporting to the house, can be answered by ministers, as they are appointed by the house?

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I am just asking—because you can ask for each other, and I am asking if the chairs can.

The SPEAKER: Order! First, can I correct the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The deputy leader could perhaps have another look at the statement, and I am happy to provide her with it or she can read it in Hansard, but I am not at all restricting standing order 96 and saying that it applies only to ministers and to chairs of committees. I am simply pointing out what has been the previous practice of the house.

I am not restricting standing order 96; my ruling applies only to the question of the member for Mount Gambier to the member for Hammond. It will be up to a future speaker to look at my ruling and decide how to apply it; they may even decide to disregard it altogether. I am merely ruling on how standing order 96 applies to the question asked by the member for Mount Gambier. The deputy leader has perhaps misunderstood.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (15:38): Mr Speaker, I want to clarify the outcome of your ruling. It seems to me that it could potentially be quite damaging to the processes of this house if, before the Speaker can rule on any individual question (such as that from the member for Mount Gambier to the member for Hammond), they have to hear the question. That creates the same dilemma to which you have referred in your ruling; it seems to create a potential hazard for the house.

I agree absolutely with the intention of your ruling, if I have understood it correctly, but how do you then deal with the problem of, for example, if I stood up tomorrow and said that I wanted to ask a question of a backbencher on the other side? How would you deal with that without me having the opportunity to put it on the record, and thereby create the very same issue about which you have spoken in this ruling?

The SPEAKER: The member for Heysen points out the dilemma. I do not think it can be resolved short of, perhaps, a member coming to ask for my opinion prior to asking the question. I am more than happy to look at any question in confidence and provide a member with an opinion as to whether or not I will rule it in order. It is a problem with questions without notice which are, to be honest, historically speaking for the parliament, a fairly recent thing and somewhat of an innovation. If the house is to deal with questions without notice, this dilemma will occur. As I have said in previous times, when a member asks a question which I consider disorderly, particularly if it contains debate, my practice is, rather than to allow the assertions made in the question to go unchallenged, to allow the minister or other member to respond and be given the appropriate latitude to answer the question. There is no other way, really, of overcoming that particular problem.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (15:41): Mr Speaker, does precedent have any value in regard to this ruling, because there is a precedent? My father was asked a question as a backbencher, and I am happy to provide details.

The SPEAKER: Members of the table staff have been very good and have tried to find any precedent of any member being asked a question regarding travel they have undertaken: we have not been able to find any precedent of a member being asked such a question. As I understand it, the member for Schubert's father was asked a question with regard to his being a chairman of a committee, I think.

Mr VENNING: No, it was about bulk handling. It was nothing to do with parliament.

The SPEAKER: Well, I would have to look at it. From the top of my head I cannot comment and, indeed, it would be improper for me to reflect on the ruling of a previous occupant of the chair.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (15:42): Mr Speaker, I would suggest that perhaps the Standing Orders Committee looks at this issue. I take the point the member for Heysen has made that the question is on the record once it is asked. While it may not be so in the composition of this particular parliament, there may be another parliament in which there is a great deal of animosity between members on opposite sides, and it is very easy to ask a question that is completely misleading and full of innuendo but once it is on the record there is no way of removing it. I suggest that the Standing Orders Committee looks at it.

The SPEAKER: I thank the member for her suggestion.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT