| Related Orders, Precedents and Rulings |
|---|
| Standing Order 137 of 1994 (Repealed) | 137. The following general rules apply to questions: (1) Questions cannot be debated. (2) Questions should not contain -
(a) statements of facts or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated
(b) argument
(c) inference
(d) imputation
(e) epithets
(f) ironical expression
(g) expression of opinion, or
(h) hypothetical matter. (3) Questions should not ask for -
(a) an expression of opinion
(b) legal opinion
(c) an announcement of government policy, or
(d) confirmation of rumour or media reports. (4) Questions should not refer to -
(a) debates in the current session, or
(b) proceedings in Committee of the Whole not reported to the House. (5) Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter. |
| 2006 Precedent | (In relation to s137(5) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (5) Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter): 1. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that the Minister in answering a question was speaking to legislation he had given notice of that sitting. The Speaker warned the Minister that he should not make reference to legislation before the House when answering a question. Following further points of order about the Minister anticipating debate the Speaker warned the Minister that he should not debate legislation that may come before the House but could provide information that could be of use to members in a future debate on legislation. PD 02/05/2006, p 22375 2. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that a Minister was providing the same answer as one that had been given on the Questions and Answers Paper that day and as such was anticipating discussion. The Speaker ruled that there was no point of order involved. PD 09/05/2006, pp 22771-2 3. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that the Premier was pre-empting debate on a bill before the House when answering a question. The Speaker did not uphold the point of order noting that there was ample precedent for the Premier to provide additional information on a bill provided the detail of the bill was not debated. PD 05/09/2006, p 1385 4. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that the Premier was answering a question specifically related to an issue the subject of legislation which had been given notice of that day and was accordingly anticipating debate. The Speaker reiterated his ruling of the previous day that the giving of notice of a bill did not preclude questions seeking further information about the subject matter of the bill, provided the detail of the bill was not debated. PD 06/09/2006, p 1542 5. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that the Minister had been asked a question about a bil |
| 2006 Precedent | (In relation to s137(2) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (2) Questions should not contain ...): 1. During questions without notice the Speaker advised a member who had asked a question that questions should seek information, not provide facts. The Speaker advised the member that he would reword his question and would be given an opportunity to ask it later. PD 04/05/2006, p 22656 2. During questions without notice the Speaker advised that a question was in part hypothetical and did not seek information. The Speaker allowed the Minister to answer the part of the question that complied with the standing orders. PD 23/05/2006, p 92 3. During questions without notice, the Speaker drew the attention of the member who had asked a question to the wording of the question, which inferred deception and dishonesty. The Speaker warned the member that such words were not appropriate and that he would not allow similar questions in future. PD 07/06/2006, p 817 4. During questions without notice the Speaker warned a member that questions should seek information rather than provide it and that questions referring to comments made outside the House should be verified. The Speaker allowed the question but advised all members to be cognisant of the standing orders. PD 24/10/2006, p 3217 |
| 2006 Precedent | 1. During questions without notice the Speaker noted that a question was a little lengthy. He allowed the question but reminded members that questions should be succinct. PD 07/06/2006, p 823 2. Question ruled out of order as it did not relate to matter associated with the Minister's portfolio. PD 07/09/2006, p 1686 3. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that a question which referred to a preselection should be ruled out of order as it related to internal party matters rather than public affairs. The Speaker did not uphold the point of order noting that the question related to the administration of justice following the preselection and was in order. PD 19/09/2006, p 1807 |
| 2006 Precedent | (In relation to s137(3) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (3) Questions should not ask for ...): 1. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that the question had sought the Minister's opinion as it asked what the Minister's concerns were. The Speaker did not uphold the point of order noting that the question sought information about the concerns of the Government and not the opinions of an individual. PD 19/09/2006, p 1800 |
| 2005 Precedent | (In relation to s137(2) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (2) Questions should not contain ...): 1. During questions without notice the Leader of the Opposition asked a question in relation to the actions of a Minister that ended with the question "When was she lying and when was she telling the truth"? A point of order was raised that the question was too long and argumentative. The Speaker advised the Leader of the Opposition that the Chair found the term "When she was lying..." offensive and unparliamentary and asked the Leader of the Opposition to reword his question. Later in question time the Leader of the Opposition rephrased his question to "...was she lying her head off....." whereupon the Speaker ruled that the phrase "telling lies" or words of that nature are offensive to the Chair and unparliamentary and again requested the Leader of the Opposition to reword his question. The Leader of the Opposition noted that in a previous ruling made by the Speaker that he had stated "To say somebody is lying his head off is not quite the same as saying that the Leader of the Opposition is telling lie..." A number of points of order were raised by Opposition members that the Speaker was not being consistent with his rulings which were not ruled on and the Leader of the Opposition was again asked to rephrase his question. PD 24/03/2005, p 14926 & 14929 |
| 2005 Precedent | (In relation to s137(3) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (3) Questions should not ask for ...): During questions without notice a point of order was raised that standing order 137(3)(c) prohibits questions that call for an announcement of government policy arguing that such announcements should be made by way of a ministerial statement to enable the Opposition to respond. The Leader of the House spoke to the point of order noting that the question had asked for the latest information on the Government's plans, which is clearly within the orders of the House. The Speaker noted that whilst there was some validity in the point of order that the Minister had been asked to provide additional information on the Government's plans which was in order. PD 13/10/2005, p 18614 |
| 2005 Precedent | (In relation to s137(5) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (5) Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter): 1. At the commencement of questions without notice the Speaker referred to a question that had been asked on a previous occasion in relation to matters before the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). He noted that the rule that motions, debates and questions should not refer to matters awaiting or under adjudication is intended to ensure fairness, that there is no prejudice and that Parliament does not prejudge findings or influence a jury or witnesses. The Speaker noted that, whilst the ICAC was not a court of law and questions had been asked and answered in relation to current ICAC investigations, he would rule out questions, debates or motions that gave rise to a real and substantial danger of prejudice to proceedings. The Speaker also noted that the greater public interest may lie in restricting debate or questions if they clearly canvass evidence, prejudge proceedings or seek to influence the finding of the commission. The Speaker advised members that whilst they enjoyed parliamentary privilege in the House that this privilege should be exercised with care so that a witness does not feel inhibited or that his or her legal rights have been denied. PD 22/03/2005, p 14704 2. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that the question which had been asked was anticipating a matter before the House as notice had been given of an intention to move an urgent motion on the matter. The Speaker advised the member who had raised the point of order that he was mistaken noting a notice of the motion had been given but the House had not determined whether the motion would be given priority and as such no motion was before the House. PD 13/09/2005, p 17600 |
| 2005 Precedent | 1. During questions without notice a Minister was asked to admit that she had lied in relation to a matter that was befrore the ICAC. The Leader of the House rose on a point of order that the question was inappropriate whilst the matter was being considered in hearings held by the ICAC and that it was offensive. The member who had asked the question argued that the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act provided for proceedings before the ICAC and proceedings of the House to continue totally independent of each other noting that it was a matter of public interest whether the Minister lied. The Speaker did not rule on the point of order and sought advice on the matter. Later, the Speaker allowed the question to be asked with two qualifications. First, the Speaker noted that the matter warrants a detailed ruling which he would give at a later stage and second that it was important to remember that the ICAC was still hearing evidence in relation to the matter and that the Assistant Commissioner hearing the matter may make some comment on the issues raised in the House. PD 01/03/2005, p 14315 & 14318 2. During questions without notice the Speaker noted that the question asked by the Leader of The Nationals took the form of a speech and warned members that a question should contain only as much information as is required to make it meaningful. PD 30/11/2005, p 20356 |
| 2004 Precedent | 1. Following the asking of a question without notice the Leader of the House raised a point of order that the question should be rephrased as it used the word "hysterical" in relation to a Minister. The Speaker noted that he had in the past drawn the attention of all members to the use of inflammatory language when asking questions and asked the member to reword his question noting that he would be given the call at a later stage. PD 20/10/2004, p 11705 2. During questions without notice the Speaker ruled a question out of order which he considered to be too long and asked the member who had asked the question to reword it noting she would be given the call again later. PD 28/10/2004, p 12271 |
| 2004 Precedent | (In relation to s137(3) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (3) Questions should not ask for ...): 1. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that the question asked requested confirmation of media reports had appeared in that day's edition of the Daily Telegraph which was prohibited under standing order 137(3) and should be ruled out of order. The Speaker did not uphold the point of order. PD 18/11/2004, p 13221 |
| 2004 Precedent | (In relation to s137(5) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (5) Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter): 1. A member rose on a point of order that the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition was clearly anticipating debate and was also double-loaded. The Speaker ruled that the first part of the question was in order but that the second part which asked the Premier about matters being on his conscience was not. PD 31/03/2004, p 7855 |
| 2004 Precedent | (In relation to s137(2) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (2) Questions should not contain ...): 1. During questions without notice the Speaker stated that he had become concerned about the way in which questions are asked noting that on a number of occasions the language used had been highly emotive, subjective and in some cases derogatory. He went on to note that in future he would look at the way in which questions are asked and at the language used in framing those questions. A member of the Opposition attempted to raise a point of order in relation to the Speaker's remarks whereupon the Speaker advised the member that he was not making remarks but was delivering a ruling. PD 11/03/2004, p 7169 2. Following the asking of a question without notice, the Speaker reminded members that questions should provide information to direct the Minister's attention to the relevant issue and that they should not contain detailed information. PD 18/03/2004, p 7594 |
| 2003 Precedent | (In relation to s137(3) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (3) Questions should not ask for ...): 5. During questions without notice the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order that the Minister, in answering a question without notice, was making a Ministerial Statement which was outside the standing orders and that he should be allowed to reply. The Speaker did not uphold the point of order. PD 04/09/2003, 3199 |
| 2003 Precedent | 1. During questions without notice the Speaker ruled that a question asked of the Premier was too long and ordered the member to revise the question noting that he would give the member the call again later. PD 29/05/2003, 1500 2. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that questions to Ministers are supposed to be concise and seek specific action as well as information and that the use of the phrase "and related matters" invites the Minister to go into matters well beyond the question thereby making it a ministerial statement. The Speaker did not uphold the point of order ruling that such terminology had been used in the Chamber for a long time. Another point of order was raised drawing the Speaker's attention to a ruling by Speaker Kelly that statements of public importance which announce and touch on some policy or a proposed action by the Government constitute a ministerial statement and asked that the Speaker rule the question to be a ministerial statement. The Speaker did not agree noting that many prominent Speakers had ruled that the Chair is not at liberty to tell a Minister how he should answer a question. PD 17/06/2003, 1557 - 58 3. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that a number of long answers were being given and that this would prevent further questions being asked within the 45 minutes set aside for questions. The member raising the point of order asked the Speaker to rule the words "and related matters" not be allowed in questions arguing that questions are supposed to be succinct and precise, as are the answers. Not upheld. PD 25/06/2003, 2126 4. During questions without notice the Speaker reminded all members that the standing orders specifically stipulate that questions without notice should not contain any derogatory or defamatory words noting that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had used such terms in his question. The Speaker allowed the question but advised the House that he would take a more critical view of such questions in future. PD |
| 2003 Precedent | (In relation to s137(2) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (2) Questions should not contain ...): 1. The Speaker ruled the question "Why did he lie" out of order due to its offensive terminology and asked the Leader of the National Party to rephrase his question. PD 02/09/2003, 2947 2. The Speaker drew the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to the standing orders relating to questions without notice advising him that questions should seek information and that they should not be argumentative or derogatory nor debate the issue. The Speaker allowed the question but warned all members that in future he would carefully examine the wording of questions. PD 14/10/2003, 3737 3. During questions without notice the Leader of The Nationals in asking a question asked whether the Minister was 'incompetent, dishonest or both'. Before the Minister made a response, the Speaker reminded the Leader of The Nationals of the prohibition in the standing orders against the use derogatory remarks in questions. PD 20/11/2003, 5468 |
| 2003 Precedent | (In relation to s137(5) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (5) Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter): 1. A member rose on a point of order that notice had been given of an urgent motion on the same subject the Minister referred to in an answer and accordingly the Minister was contravening the standing orders. The Leader of the House spoke to the point of order noting that the House was yet to determine which urgent motion would come before the House and therefore the answer was not anticipating debate. The Speaker, agreed with the Leader of the House and the point of order was not upheld. PD 07/05/2003, 408 2. During questions without notice, a point of order was raised that a question asked of the Premier was out of order under the standing orders as it anticipated debate on a bill that was currently before the Parliament. The Leader of the House argued that the point of order was incorrect as the question did not relate to the bill to which it was inferred arguing that even if it was that the House was entitled to have a question that elicits information that will assist members in debate on bills before the House. The point of order was not upheld. PD 13/11/2003, 4980 |
| 2001 Precedent | 1. Point of order taken that Minister was announcing a new policy in answer to a question without notice. The Speaker ruled that the Minister's answer was for the information of the House and he was at liberty to touch on government policy in his answer. PD 6/3/01, 12235 2. Member reminded about the Chair's attitude to multiple questions and invited to rephrase three questions into one. PD 12/4/01, 13724 3. Question ruled out of order for being argumentative. The Speaker indicated that the Member should omit one word and he would give the Member the call after the next question to re-ask the question. PD 11/4/01, 13637 4. Question ruled out of order for being too lengthy. PD 20/9/01, 16996 5. Question ruled out of order as providing information. PD 20/9/01, 16997 6. Point of order upheld that question was multipronged. The Speaker directed the Member to put his question again. PD 16/10/01 17318 |
| 2000 Precedent | 1. Question concerning the conduct of a Member ruled out of order. Point of order was raised that because no Member had been specifically named in the question it was not out of order. The Speaker ruled that the question reflected on all Members and therefore did no credit to any Member of the House. PD 08/08/00, 7943, 7945 2. Question concerning the conduct of a Member ruled out of order. PD 09/08/00, 8028 |
| 1999 Precedent | (In relation to s137(2) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (2) Questions should not contain ...): 1. Speaker ruled a question out of order. A short while later, he stated that he took exception to a comment made by the member [not recorded in Hansard] and that he had ruled the previous question out of order because of the manner in which it was asked, not because of its content. PD 02/06/99, 820 2. Speaker permitted the Leader of the National Party to rephrase a question which was out of order because it contained argument. PD 23/06/99, 1196 |
| 1999 Precedent | (In relation to s137(5) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (5) Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter): 1. Speaker ruled that members may ask questions about bills that are before the House to enable them to be better informed about debate on proposed legislation. PD 23/06/99, 1194 |
| 1999 Precedent | 1. The Speaker ruled a question out of order because it contained a personal reflection on a member. He added that Standing Order 82 requires that such matters are to be dealt with by way of substantive motion, that the facts of the matter were awaiting determination by a court and that it would not be in accordance with the practice of the House to deal with a substantive motion before those facts were determined. Later, the Speaker permitted a question on the same subject which did not contain the personal reflection. PD 22/09/99, 1066, 1068 |
| 1998 Precedent | (In relation to s137(2) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (2) Questions should not contain ...): 1. Question asking about comments made by the Minister in the public arena, ie, in a radio interview, ruled in order. PD 21/05/98, 5065 2. To ask how members "might" have been affected by representations previously made was not hypothetical. PD 28/05/98, 5425 3. The Speaker drew the attention of members to his concerns with the framing and content of some questions without notice and advised that under Standing Order 137 questions without notice should not include imputation of improper motives, argument, inference, expression of opinion or unnecessary additional information. Under Standing Order 82 personal attacks and the impugning of improper motives upon members are disorderly other than by substantive motion. VP 02/06/98, 668
PD 02/06/98, 5514 4. On a point of order that the member asking the question was expressing his opinion as facts, the Speaker ruled that as he was unaware of the facts he assumes the question is in order. PD 17/06/98, 6024 5. The Speaker ruled that part of a question was argumentative and permitted the member to rephrase the question. PD 23/06/98, 6249 6. The Speaker gave latitude to the Leader of the Opposition and allowed a question which he considered to be argumentative. PD 25/06/98, 6625, cf PD 18/06/98, 6157 7. Member directed to re-ask her question without preliminary remarks. PD 08/09/98, 7178 8. The Speaker ordered member to rephrase a question which was couched in an argumentative way and contained additional information. PD 16/09/98, 7505 9. Member warned about adding unnecessary comments to a question. PD 20/10/98, 8748 |
| 1998 Precedent | (In relation to s137(5) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (5) Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter): 1. Answer giving information relating to forthcoming matter of public importance in order. PD 07/04/98, 3732 2. It is a longstanding tradition of this House that members may seek additional information relating to legislation that is before the House. PD 20/05/98, 4914 3. Question relating to specific provisions of a bill while the bill was in committee stage was ruled out of order. PD 21/05/98, 5062 4. Question asking what was the response to an item in the budget in order. PD 04/06/98, 5820 5. The Speaker made a statement indicating that in view of the subject matter of the motion presently before the House (no confidence in the Government) the rule against anticipation of debate would not be strictly enforced during Question Time at this sitting. VP 08/09/98, 828
PD 08/09/98, 7172 6. Objection that a question anticipated the debate on a bill overruled as the bill was not all-encompassing and the question allowed the Minister to provide information so that members would be better informed for the debate. PD 15/09/98, 7396 7. Question regarding a matter for which notice of an urgent motion has been given allowed as the House had not decided which urgent motion it would debate. PD 17/09/98, 7646 8. It is a longstanding tradition that Ministers may be asked questions designed to elicit additional information about legislation. PD 27/10/98, 9016 |
| 1997 Precedent | (In relation to s137(2) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (2) Questions should not contain ...): 1. Speaker allowed a question which included allegedly argumentative material as the comment included may assist the Minister in answering the question. PD 15/04/97, 7506 |
| 1997 Precedent | (In relation to s137(5) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (5) Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter): 1. Point of order raised that, in answering a question, the Minister was anticipating discussion on a bill for which notice had been given. Following a ruling of Speaker Rozzoli in 1993, the Speaker ruled that questions that sought factual information for use in forthcoming debate were in order and did not uphold the point of order. PD 15/04/97, 7508 |
| 1997 Precedent | (In relation to s137(3) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (3) Questions should not ask for ...): 1. On a point of order taken that, in answering a question, the Minister was making an announcement of policy which should be given by way of Ministerial Statement, the Speaker ruled that there was a fine line between an announcement about policy and a change in the implementation of policy, and in this instance the answer was the latter. PD 20/5/97, 8828 2. Bringing the attention of the House to a change in existing legislation was not an announcement of policy. PD 20/5/97, 8830 3. A question asking what was the effect of a court decision on the validity of certain search warrants was in order. PD 26/11/97, 2714 |
| 1996 Precedent | 1. After point of order taken Speaker said that he would allow member to rephrase question. PD 4/6/96, 2414. 2. Question without notice ruled out of order by Speaker
PD 17/10/96, 5031. 3. Question without notice ruled out of order by Speaker as too lengthy. PD 22/10/96, 5130 |
| 1995 Precedent | 1. Speaker upheld points of order and ruled question without notice out of order as being argumentative and suggested member reword it (Why did the Minister break a promise...?)
VP 1/6/95, 591 2. Speaker upheld point of order that questions without notice should not consist of more than two parts. Member reframed and asked question later. PD 6/12/95, 4251 3. Point of order taken and upheld that question sought a legal opinion. Speaker suggested member rephrase question. PD 7/12/95, 4437-4438. |
| 1994 Precedent | 1. Minister mentioned several companies that had supported a grand prix at Eastern Creek raceway. Point of order taken that it was a gross misuse of question time to use it for corporate advertising. The Speaker ruled that there was no point of order involved, and there was no precedent for the matter raised in the point of order. He was, however, concerned at the length of time that the Minister had taken to answer the question and asked him to conclude as speedily as possible. PD 16/3/94, 811 2. The Speaker warned that the Chair did not regard with any great degree of amusement the tag attached by a member to his question. PD 16/3/94, 813 3. Two part question asked. The Speaker ruled that the first part in order because, although similar to an earlier question, it elicited facts in regard to a different matter. The second part of the question was ruled out of order as it was identical to an earlier question. Point of order taken when the Minister referred to the second part of the question in his answer. The Speaker replied that although he had ruled the second part of the question out of order, the Chair had no control over the way that the Minister chose to answer the first part. PD 11/10/94, 3697 4. Question ruled out of order on the grounds that it began with the words 'Are you aware of allegations', and then proceeded to give information. The Speaker referred members to the ruling of Speaker Kelly in Parliamentary Debates 1976-78, p 2420, which states that prefacing questions with the words 'Are you aware' is tantamount to giving information. PD 27/10/94, 4864 5. Question ruled out of order on the grounds that it began with the words 'Are you aware of recent statements'. PD 15/11/94, 4999 6. Question ruled out of order on the grounds that it was badly framed. PD 15/11/94, 4999 |
| 1994 Precedent | (In relation to s137(4) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (4) Questions should not refer to ...): 1. Point of order taken that question referred to legislation that had recently been before the House. The Speaker replied that, until he heard the minister's answer, he was unable to interpret whether it fell within the category of raising a matter already determined by the House. PD 14/4/94, 1212 |
| 1994 Precedent | (In relation to s137(2) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (2) Questions should not contain ...): 1. Question ruled out of order as it asked for an opinion. The Speaker indicated that the member could seek to ask the question again later in a rephrased form. A question on a different matter was then asked and answered, followed by a supplementary question. Point of order taken that the supplementary question was designed to prevent the disallowed question from being rephrased and that, as the answer had already been provided, the disallowed question should now be allowed. The Speaker replied that the Chair had never been able to rule on the quality of questions, including supplementary questions. He noted that if he allowed the supplementary question, 10 questions would have been asked and this would preclude the disallowed question from being re-asked until tomorrow. He allowed the supplementary question but noted that the use of this procedure as a ruse to prevent a member from the other side asking the last question of the day was a matter for his conscience. PD 2/3/94, 71, 72-73 2. Point of order taken that question sought to argumentative and presented a point of view. The Speaker ruled that the question did not come within the category of arguing or debating the matter. However it was a long standing practice of the House that a member should ask only one principal question and that the question should seek facts. He allowed the question but warned members that to string a number of questions together within the one question may well lead to the question being ruled out of order or to its being restricted to the first part of the question. Further point of order taken that the member had asked the Minister if he would assist him. The Speaker replied questions should not seek an opinion but should seek facts or action. A question should give no more information than was necessary to make the question sensible. The phrasing of the question was not in the form of seeking an opinion, therefore, |
| 1993 Precedent | 1. The Speaker ruled that there was no bar to asking questions which reflect on a person outside the Chamber. PD 27/10/93, 4520 2. Point of order taken that matter raised in a question was before the House in a notice of motion. The Speaker ruled that a question that sought to elicit facts but not debate an issue was not necessarily anticipating debate but seeking information which may be pertinent to the debate that follows. PD 27/10/93, 4520 |
| 1993 Precedent | (In relation to s137(5) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (5) Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter): 1. Point of order taken that Minister was anticipating debate on a matter in respect of which notice had been given. The Speaker reminded the member that past rulings of Presiding Officers allowed questions seeking factual information which may be of use in forthcoming debates. He ruled the question and answer in order. PD 9/9/93, 2976 |
| 1992 Precedent | (In relation to s137(2) (d) [The following general rules apply to questions: (2) Questions should not contain] (d) imputation): 1. Point of order raised as to whether a question impugned a member of the House. The Speaker replied that he was contemplating whether or not the question should be ruled out of order on the grounds of being too factual, argumentative and too long. However, as the Attorney General rose to answer the question, it was allowed, however the member was warned that the question came close to being ruled out of order. PD 20/3/92, 1626 2. The Attorney General asked a member to withdraw the imputation that he was not performing his duty. The Speaker ruled that his authority to direct a withdrawal did not have that scope. Although the question may have contained an imputation, the words used were not offensive words. The Attorney General would have adequate opportunity to refute any imputations during his answer. PD 20/3/92, 1636 |
| 1992 Precedent | (In relation to s137(2) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (2) Questions should not contain ...): 1. The Speaker ruled that as the Attorney General rose to answer a question, it would be allowed, however the member was warned that the question came close to being ruled out of order on the grounds of being too long. PD 20/3/92, 1626 2. Question ruled out of order for providing information and being argumentative. PD 26/3/92, 2122 3. The Speaker ruled that a Minister's willingness to answer a question does not determine whether it should be ruled to be in or out of order. He noted that on several occasions he had warned members that questions bordered on being too long or that they may be flawed if they contain too much information and become argumentative. Question ruled out of order. Member then raised point of order about a question asked on 20/3/93 that contained the same number of words as his question, but which had been allowed. Speaker replied that he did not intend to count the number of words in questions and that the member could discuss the matter further with him in his Chambers. PD 24/3/92, 1736, 1738 |
| 1992 Precedent | (In relation to s137(3) [The following general rules apply to questions:] (3) Questions should not ask for ...): 1. Point of order ruled out of order that the Premier was making a ministerial statement in response to a question without notice. Speaker was satisfied that the Premier was making a factual reply to the question he was asked. Member continued to debate the point of order, drawing Speaker's attention to a ruling from Speaker Ellis that 'a statement made by a Minister upon public matters which announced some policy or gave information of action which had been taken or was proposed......constituted a Ministerial Statement'. Speaker replied that he did not agree with the member about the circumstances he extrapolated. In examining these encapsulating statements, it is important that the Chair consider the circumstances that applied when the ruling was given. PD 22/9/92, 6141-43 2. Point of order taken that a question asked for a legal opinion. The Minister having commenced his answer before the point of order was taken, Speaker ruled that the member was rather tardy and he could not remember sufficiently the text of the question in order to adjudicate on the matter. He asked the member to restate his question in the form in which it was originally asked. Having heard the question again, Speaker ruled that although it asked whether a matter had legal validity in NSW, the question was capable of being answered factually in simple terms, therefore it was in order. When the Premier attempted to elaborate on the matter of legal validity, Speaker asked him to discuss the matter with him afterwards. PD 27/11/92, 10446 |
| 1992 Precedent | 1. After a question alluded to an answer given on the previous day, the Speaker ruled that members should remember that each day must be taken in its own right and that members should behave with more decorum during question time. PD 20/3/92, 1630 2. Point of order raised that Minister was making a personal attack upon a member when answering a question. The Minister quoted from a statement of liquidated claims, alleging that the member owed money. Member raising point of order asked that a substantive motion be moved so that such a matter may be dealt with adequately by the House. The Speaker replied that some questions may well, if they were taken beyond a certain point, be deemed to be raising matters that required the moving of a substantive motion. If the Chair applied the general rule rigidly many questions would be ruled out of order. He did not intend to apply that rule in this case but informed the Minister that he would listen very carefully to what is said. If the member who is referred to in the answer wishes to take a point of order in regard this matter, it will be for that member to take the point of order. Member who was referred to in the answer later granted leave to make a personal explanation during which he advised that, as a result of the intended politicisation of an outstanding court case, a request had been made to the Courts to expedite the matter and challenged the Minister to make the allegations outside of the House. Speaker ruled that member was not entitled to debate the matter. PD 29/4/92, 3011, 3014 3. The Speaker warned members that questions which asked multiple questions, gave facts rather than seeking information or were too long would be ruled out of order. He did not rule the particular question out of order on this occasion but stated that he would not like members to take this as a precedent upon which to frame questions. PD 3/9/92, 5477 4. The Speaker cited previous examples when questions which contained multiple questions and gave a considerable amount of information |
| 1968 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER ELLIS: Before calling on questions, I take the opportunity of making an appeal to honourable members so to frame their questions without notice seeking information from the Government that the form and presentation of the subject matter will be in conformity with the rules and practice of the House. Standing Orders 76 to 80 provide that questions may be put to Ministers relating to public affairs and in putting any question, no argument or opinion shall be offered, nor any facts stated except as so far as may be necessary to explain such question. It is in the practice of the House, however, that the basic requirements and limitations placed upon questions with or without notice are to be found. Questions should have relation to the public affairs and matters of administration for which the Minister is officially responsible. As the purpose of a question is to obtain information or press for action, it should be framed in concise and definite terms and not contain preamble or comment. It should not give information or be, in effect, a short speech, but should be of a genuinely interrogative character. It follows that questions should not contain arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets, or ironical expressions. A question should not be a hypothetical one or ask for confirmation of rumours or of press reports and a Minister should not be asked for an expression of opinion or for a legal opinion. In most contexts, the expression "Is the Minister aware" is tantamount to giving information and accordingly should, if possible, be avoided. Similarly, the expression "is it a fact that" though perhaps technically in order, rarely serves any useful purpose, and may be avoided by other more straightforward devices. Questions without notice should be of an urgent nature and important character. If they are not in this category notice of the question should be given by placing it on the Questions and Answers paper. This particularly applies to questions which are long or involved or obviously require research, o |