Wednesday, 2 April 2025

 The SPEAKER (14:02): Before we commence question time, I would like to respond to a point of order raised by the Manager of Opposition Business yesterday. This is quite a long ruling, so bear with me.

Questions are a way for members to seek information from ministers about public policy and government administration for which those ministers are responsible to the house. Similarly, ministers statements are an opportunity for ministers to inform the house about matters in their portfolio areas for which they are accountable to the house. From this principle flow various conventions and rules about questions which prohibit discussion about issues outside the remit of government administration or seeking or providing opinions.

This brings me to hypothetical matters. The guidelines state that a question cannot seek a solution to a hypothetical proposition. A minister cannot be responsible to the house for hypothetical matters, which is why the guidelines about questions and answers – and I will include ministers statements in that – prohibit canvassing hypothetical matters. It is reasonable to expect the house to canvass the effect on government administration of a range of external factors, though. For example, it is fair for members to ask a minister what the government’s policy is in the event of an external event happening ‍– a natural disaster or economic changes globally – or what planning is underway for various scenarios in a minister’s portfolio. It is reasonable for the house to be satisfied that the government is thinking about these things.

In that vein, Speaker Maddigan ruled that, where information about proposed federal government reforms has been provided in the press, it is not hypothetical for a minister to answer a question that relates to Victorian government business and the effect that government policies – federal or any other ‍– may have on the state. Speaker Maddigan also ruled that it is reasonable to discuss the effect of federal government policies on Victorian government administration but it is out of order to discuss how a possible future federal government might affect the state as it is hypothetical.

Clearly the rule against proposing hypothetical matters does not prohibit asking questions or discussing any future event. In relation to Speaker Maddigan’s latter ruling, while it is hypothetical to speculate about what a future government might do, where specific policies and commitments have been announced it is reasonable for a minister to canvass how these policies and commitments will affect government administration. However, ministers should confine their comments to specific policies and commitments and not speculate on unannounced policies a future government might implement.