S.O.130 Questions - Answer not to debate
130. In answering a Member shall not debate the matter to which the question relates.
| Related Orders, Precedents and Rulings |
|---|
| 2008 Precedent | 1. During Question Time a point of order was taken that a Minister was debating an issue rather than answering a question. The Speaker did not rule on the point of order but asked the Minister to return to the leave of the question. PD 30/10/2008, 10962 |
| S.O. 139 of 1994 (Repealed) | 139. In answering a Member shall not debate the matter to which the question relates. |
| 2006 Precedent | 1. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that the Minister was debating the question asked. The Speaker asked the Minister to be precise in his response. A further point of order was raised that the Minister was flouting the Speaker's ruling and continuing to debate the question. The Speaker requested the Minister to provide an answer that did not contain rhetorical questions which could be perceived as debating the question
PD 21/09/2006, pp 2115-6 |
| 2005 Precedent | 1. During questions without notice a member rose on a point of order regarding the answer provided by the Premier. The Speaker reminded the member that she must take a point of order in relation to the processes and procedures of the House or resume her seat noting that question time is not a debate and that if the member does not like the response she has received that there are other ways of dealing with it. PD 22/09/2005, p 18217 2. During questions without notice a member rose on a point of order that the Minister in answering the question was lying about him and asked the Minister to withdraw the comment. The Speaker advised the member that if he believed that he had been impugned in some way that there is another way of dealing with it other than by debating the matter during question time. PD 22/09/2005, p 18218 3. During questions without notice a point of order was raised regarding standing order 139 in relation to a Minister's response to an interjection arguing that question time is not a debate. The Speaker asked Ministers not to respond to interjections noting that if they did so question time would become a debate across the Chamber and would erode the time allowed for questions. PD 22/09/2005, p 18218 4. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that the Minister was engaging in debate and was not answering the question. The Speaker noted that he was inclined to uphold the point of order and asked the Minister to answer the question and be mindful of the time he was taking to do so. PD 11/10/2005, p 18324 5. During questions without notice the Deputy Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of order purportedly relating to standing orders 138 and 139. The Speaker ordered him to resume his seat and when he continued to debate the matter was told he was contravening standing order 139 and was placed on two calls to order and directed to resume his seat. PD 12/10/2005, p 18472 |
| 2004 Precedent | 1. During questions without notice, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order that the Premier was debating the question asked. The Speaker did not uphold the point of order and advised that the Chair has no authority to direct the Premier or any Minister how to answer a question. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition objected, the Speaker advised that he was clearly canvassing his ruling and ordered him to resume his seat noting that if he did not do so he would be removed from the Chamber by the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms. PD 10/03/2004, p 7019 2. During questions without notice, a point of order was raised that a Minister in responding to a question was debating issues that were not raised in the question. The Speaker upheld the point of order and advised members that it would assist the House if there were not so many interjections while Ministers were replying to questions. PD 18/03/2004, p 7593 |
| 2000 Precedent | 1. A point of order having been taken that the Minister answering a question without notice was making a ministerial statement, the Speaker ruled that it was a long standing tradition in the House that Ministers, when answering questions, are permitted to provide information relating to proposed government initiatives. PD 15/08/00, 8158 2. A point of order having been taken that the Premier's response was totally irrelevant to the question, the Speaker upheld the point of order. PD 17/08/00, 8344 |
| 1993 Precedent | 1. Member took a point of privilege that a Minister had failed to correctly and fully answer a question upon notice. The Speaker ruled that this was not a matter of privilege, whereby the member gave a notice of motion on the same matter. Point of order taken that the notice was argumentative and long. The Speaker stated that he hesitated to give a ruling until he had had the opportunity to consider the text of the notice of motion and the comments made by the Minister moving the point of order. He undertook to consider the matter and make a decision later in the day. A similar notice was then given by another member concerning the failure of another Minister to correctly and fully answer a question upon notice. Point of order taken that the two notices of motion should be ruled out of order because they had not been lodged in accordance with procedures for questions on notice. The Speaker accepted only one of the notices because one member failed to lodge a written copy. The next day the Speaker advised the House that he had also ruled that the notice of motion was out of order under Standing Order 78 [now 138 and 139] which said that 'An answer shall be relevant to the Question and in answering any such Question a member shall not debate the matter to which the same refers'. Therefore the Chair could direct only to the relevance of the answer. He cited rulings by Speaker Kelly, that Ministers may give information that has been sought, and may answer as they see fit. Accordingly all answers given would be open to subjective assessment as to whether they were right, wrong, complete or abbreviated answers. Every member could complain about the answers they receive. Thus the device of giving notice of a motion, such as the type given by the member, could be used by every member who was not happy about an answer; could be open to abuse and could go on ad infinitum. Further such notices by their very nature contain argument. He informed the House that in future he would rule out of order similarly worded notices an |
« Return to Standing orders index