Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Imputations of Corruption

Issues of ministerial responsibility and the inclusion of statements in questions arose in relation to questions Nos 4 and 12 on 8 May. The lodgment of both questions was the subject of considerable debate, and their subsequent acceptance involved some give and take. Question 12 addressed a meeting the Minister of Immigration had held and contained a statement about a donation to a political party. The question, as reconsidered, was accepted. The statement was authenticated and, given that there is nothing improper in making donations to political parties, the question was allowed.

However, I accept that some may have seen an imputation in the question as a whole. I have reflected on this. What is not in order is to impute that members or Ministers have been offered, received, or solicited inducements. Supplementary questions to both question 4 and question 12 strayed into this territory. Members must not make veiled suggestions of corruption or impropriety across the floor of the House, such as cash for access - type allegations. Where they do so, they will be asked to withdraw, because such suggestions are offensive to the House as a whole.

This House takes corruption very seriously. It is well established that any such allegation must be raised as a matter of privilege by writing to the Speaker. That is the proper way for such matters to be raised. They must not be raised on the floor of the House by way of interjection or in questions or debate.