Page 1251 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So the Treasurer may speak about the Labor-Greens agreement in that way. Members of this place may come in here and speak; for instance, in relation, I think, to Redex, Mr Stanhope came in here and said, “We have delivered on an element of the Labor-Greens agreement.” And that is something that is said quite often. So it is all right for the government to speak about the Labor-Greens agreement; it is all right for the Greens party to speak about the Labor-Greens agreement. But it is not all right for the only people in this place who are independent to question the government on its spending in relation to the Labor-Greens agreement; it is not all right for the Liberal opposition, on behalf of the people of the ACT—the people who pay our wages, who pay your wages, who pay your wages, Mr Speaker, and expect you to be independent, and who pay the Greens’ wages. We are the only people who are prepared, on behalf of those people, to ask questions. And suddenly there has been a change of thought; there has been a change of heart.
You, Mr Speaker, have to justify that change of heart because we are now in a situation where, in a sense, a whole lot of questions that have been asked and answered are invalid. You need to go back and look at the number of questions that have been asked about this. Are you going to rule those out of order retrospectively? What is the situation with those questions? There are questions on notice, I am sure, that relate to the Labor-Greens agreement, or there have been in the past. What is the status of all that information provided? I am convinced that you have not thought this through.
Let us go to House of Representatives Practice. It says on page 538 in relation to “Form and content of questions”:
A Minister can only be questioned on matters for which he or she is responsible or officially connected.
It is both: it is “responsible or officially connected”.
Such matters must concern public affairs, administration, or procedures pending in the House.
When Mr Coe asked questions about the Labor-Greens agreement and housing, that is clearly a matter of public affairs and it is clearly a matter for which a minister has responsibility on the other side. That is a reasonable thing to ask, in the same way as the other day when Mr Seselja asked a question about the policy for paying invoices, as it was clearly set out in the Labor-Greens agreement. It is reasonable that he should ask it in that context and it is reasonable that the minister should answer the question. The minister did answer the question, but Mr Seselja should not have been required to rephrase the question.
There are a whole lot of exceptions on pages 538 and 539 and I did, when I was reviewing this earlier in the week, look at the matter that you raised—the second dot point on page 539—and thought: I wonder if the Speaker will hang his hat on that one:
… arrangements between parties, for example, coalition agreements on ministerial appointments;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video