Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

To quickly sum up the debate, it is unfortunate that what was a very good technical debate about some issues of principle has been somewhat lowered by Senator Forshaw’s intervention. I note that he did not make a strong start by congratulating you on your election to the presidency of the Senate unopposed—but I think we now know whose vote was the informal one in that ballot! There was actually a ballot. And can I say publicly on the record, although it was a secret ballot, I voted for President Hogg and I have no regrets about having voted for Senator Hogg, and any suggestion by Senator Forshaw that the allegation is that the chair deliberately ‘denied’—and words to that effect—and that there is a reflection on the chair, I repudiate. At the very outset I indicated that I did not in any way want to question the integrity of the President but I did want to join issue in relation to the technicalities.

Can I actually deal with those technicalities. There is nothing in Senator Forshaw’s contribution that deals with the technicalities. Senator Sherry suggested that the question had been ruled out of order and that leave had not been sought. But I think the principle that Senator Ellison outlined is a very important one. In relation to Senator O’Brien’s contribution, on reflection I think he may well be right. I would like to relook at section 72(1), given the comments he made. He may well be right—which gets me thinking: I understand the Clerk is busily rewriting another edition of Odgers and if that, perchance, happens to be the case I would gratuitously suggest that these matters might be clarified at some greater length in Odgers so the confusion that occurred today can be overcome.

Now that I have had the opportunity of reading the totality of the President’s statement, I would like to draw issue with another point. The first one is in the third paragraph where it was suggested that I had indicated that I considered the question should be treated as a question under standing order 72(1). With great respect, I made no such point and sought leave.

In relation to the second last paragraph of the President’s statement, it says:

Question time, however, is a structured occasion in which the chair is expected to adhere to the customary order in giving the call for questions to be asked.

Fully agreed; no objection to that. The statement goes on:

In that context it is not appropriate for the chair, having ruled a question out of order, to give the senator concerned an immediate opportunity to ask the question again.

Can I say with great respect, Mr President, my request to seek leave would not have been the chair giving me the opportunity to ask the question; it would have been the Senate granting leave that would have allowed that opportunity to arise. So in that aspect I think that the statement also needs some reconsideration because it would not have fallen on the chair to allow an immediate opportunity to ask the question again; it would have been up to any one single individual senator to simply say, ‘Leave denied,’ and that would have been the end of the story. So in relation to that, I would also suggest that further reflection might make for a more robust statement, and I only say that because these statements are then used as guidance by other senators in the future. But there are, with respect, two major issues that I think on any objective analysis cannot be sustained.

Having said that, Mr President, unfortunately I need to repeat yet again that nothing in what I have said in taking note in my first speech or in summing up now is in any way, shape or form to be interpreted by anybody, including Senator Forshaw, to be a reflection on you or the way in which you conduct yourself in relation to your motives. This is only about the technicalities and, I think, clearing them up. That is why Senator O’Brien’s contribution I thought was a good contribution and it has got me thinking. I think that on these sorts of issues it is good to have dispassionate debates to deal with the technicalities. I thank the Senate for the leave that was granted to allow me to move the motion.

Question agreed to.