Browse > Home / News / Rare question put to Opposition MP

Rare question put to Opposition MP

Posted on June 24, 2009, 8:08am

Member for Mount Gambier Rory McEwen was involved in a unique parliamentary moment earlier this month when he asked an Opposition MP to answer a question in Question Time.

The speaker, Jack Snelling, allowed the question, which was directed to Liberal MP for Hammond, Adrian Pederick, regarding a trip he made to New South Wales and Queensland in June last year.

Liberal MP for Schubert, Ivan Venning, unsuccessfully moved a point of order to have the question disallowed.

“He (Mr Pederick) is not a minister yet. He will be soon,” Mr Venning said.

The speaker said he could not rule on the point of order without hearing the question and then allowed it.

Twelve days later, the speaker gave a more detailed explanation, conceding the event was a rare occurrence.

He said the house had allowed questions to members who were not ministers or chairmen of committees only if the question related to a matter for which the member was responsible to the house.

“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,” he said.

“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.”

The speaker, Mr Snelling, said in fairness to Mr Pederick he 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,” he said, adding that Mr Pederick had complied with all reporting requirements.

“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,” the speaker said.

In discussion on the speaker’s explanation, Mr Venning said there was a precedent in the South Australian Parliament involving his father, who he said was asked a question about bulk handling while he was a backbencher.

It was suggested the Standing Orders Committee examine the issue to prevent potential abuse.

MICHAEL GOREY

Tags:  

Comments

Posting of new comments is currently disabled.