Speaker’s Rulings — Points of Order—Minister’s Answers

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a quick issue that arises from your ruling on the point of order I raised with you. I want to seek some clarification. I am grateful for your ruling, but if I look at Speaker’s ruling 145/7, in your name, I see that it states: “Any answer must address the question asked. The answer must be a direct response;” etc., and then I contrast that with Speaker’s ruling 144/3: “It is not obligatory on a Minister to answer a question.”, and Speaker’s ruling 144/4: “The Speaker cannot force a Minister to give an answer to a question …”. I want to be clear in my mind that you are saying that in addressing a question a Minister has to give a response—but you, as Speaker, have no responsibility for the quality of that response—and the response somehow has to address the question itself, despite the fact that those other rulings say there is no obligation on a Minister to actually answer the question. I think that that is at the heart of a lot of the current disputes.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member, because it is a useful point of order. Those two instances, I am advised, were when the Minister said: “No, I will not answer.” It was just: “No, I will not answer.”, and that was way back in 1968 and 1972, I think. The ruling I gave refers to the fact that a Minister must address the question. The answer might not be satisfactory to the person who asked the question, but that answer has to be given.