Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I know that you have said on previous occasions that you do not wish to revisit the events that occur during question time. I do ask you whether it will be your practice to give members the call by line of sight rather than actually uttering the words ‘the member for X’ or the member’s title.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am honestly not sure what the member for North Sydney is getting at, but if it was the incident preceding the suspension of standing orders—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will simply say—reluctant as I am to revisit the events of earlier on, not just in this case but in any case—that it is my intention, and it has got me into trouble before, to rotate the call on questions. That is because the written word is a bit silent on that. The convention of the House is to rotate the call. The second thing that I would indicate is that I have been very conscious of not denying members the ability to raise legitimate points of order. That has tested my popularity with certain members, but I continue to protect that.

You will recall, earlier in question time, that I was nearly overly firm with the member for Sturt when, in fact, he had the right to come to the dispatch box to raise a point of order. I indicate that on that occasion I was wary because we had moved on, I felt; but he legitimately raised the point of order where he was seeking the tabling of a document.

In the case before when the rotation was going to the government side and there was a government member standing and then the Leader of the Opposition stood, if you want an admission from the chair, there was an element of the bunny in the spotlight because I was unsure of the intentions of the Leader of the Opposition. He indicated those intentions which then meant that I had more reason, in my mind, to give the call to the member for Chisholm. I am not sure what the replays will show but, in my own mind, I had not given the call to anybody.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Melham interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Banks might think he is assisting but he is not.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to that, Mr Speaker, there was a previous occasion in this parliament where, even though a member had jumped to his feet, you identified that a member on the government side in fact was on their feet quicker. But what you have just said is that you will rotate the call and, just to get clarity, you will not entertain motions at the end of an answer—we have to wait for the rotation of the call. Is that right?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If that is the construct that the member takes from my comments that would assist the chair. But can I say that I understand that the Manager of Opposition Business has a long memory. I remember the incidents earlier in this parliament and every incident and every day I learn something new about this place.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I appreciate your explanation for the matters in question time. I have a general question to you, which goes to my experience in the last 15 years, that when the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister seek the call they have generally been given precedence because of their positions in the House, especially over a backbench member of the parliament. Has that changed or will you continue that practice?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In general, as I have indicated in private to others, that would be what I would do. In the case where there is a rotation of the call, it does not automatically apply. I have already apologised to the Leader of the Opposition for his first day when he was merely trying to make a personal explanation and I gave two of his backbenchers the call before him on the basis only that they had tipped me off that that was what they were wanting to do. In that case, clearly, I should have given him precedence. Today I am satisfied that, in trying to be consistent, I have conveyed what I intend to try to achieve in the rotation of the call. It will not always be perfect; I am a mere mortal.