John Hogg (President) Share this | Hansard source

Order! I will now proceed to make a statement, as I said I would, in respect of the question by Senator Abetz during question time. At question time, there was discussion on points of order about a question asked by Senator Abetz. I undertook to consider the matter further and make a more detailed statement to the Senate.

Senator Abetz’s question, as recorded in the transcript, was:

My question about the urgency for releasing an interim report on Fuelwatch is directed to the chair of the Economics Committee. What was the urgency for releasing an interim report on Fuelwatch?

Senator Abetz subsequently indicated that he considered that his question should be treated as a question under standing order 72(1) under which a senator may ask a question of another senator about business on the Notice Paper of which the other senator has charge. The question could not be treated as a question under that provision, however, because there is no business on the Notice Paper relating to the committee report concerned. That report was presented yesterday. No motion in relation to it was moved and, therefore, there was no business relating to it on the Notice Paper. The listing of the inquiry under the list of committees at the back of the Notice Paper is not an item of business.

Also, the question was to the chair of the committee and concerned the presentation of the report of the committee and, therefore, was clearly a question about the activities of the committee. The question, therefore, has to be treated as one under standing order 72(2). Under that provision, a question may be put to the chair of a committee only on notice or by leave. It became clear that notice had not been given of the question. Leave had not been sought to ask the question. Therefore, the question was out of order and I ruled to that effect.

It was suggested to me that I allow Senator Abetz to make a second attempt to ask the question by seeking leave to ask it. That course would normally be followed where a senator is seeking to make a statement or otherwise speak in circumstances requiring leave. 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.

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 as it ought to have been asked in the first place. That would deprive another senator of his or her due turn in the order of question time and would disrupt the customary order of asking questions. The appropriate course for me, therefore, was to proceed to the next question, which would leave open the option for the question which was out of order to be attempted again later in the normal order of question time.