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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Mr President, I thank you for the courtesy of providing me with a copy of your statement. I say at the outset that no-one should interpret my statement now as questioning in any way the integrity with which you have approached this issue. It is solely on the technical aspects that I seek to reflect.

Firstly, given the ruling as to the non-application of standing order 72(1) as it relates to other senators, it is, with respect, hard to imagine any circumstances where that standing order might apply. One wonders how that section would, in fact, ever apply. If examples cannot be provided then the standing order should be amended and I invite the Procedure Committee to examine the matter. In particular, I refer to page 170 of the 11th edition of Odgers where there is a heading ‘Questions to senators concerning business’. It says:

At the time provided for questions, in addition to questions to ministers concerning public affairs and to committee chairs, questions may be asked of senators concerning business of which they have charge (SO 72(1)).

Then it says what the questions cannot do. There is no requirement there that leave is required.

At the very best, what I would suggest is that the standing orders are unclear and therefore should be clarified by the Procedure Committee. I request them to do that because I believe those of us who do seek to read standing orders, even those of us with a legal background, interpret them in a particular way and then we have confusion in the interpretation of the standing orders by senators. I think just for the future for any senators that should be clarified.

The next issue is the precedent—and I think this is a very concerning and very dangerous precedent—of the chair not allowing a senator to seek leave. This afternoon I sought leave and the chair refused to put that request to the Senate. I believe that the Procedure Committee should have a look at that as well, because I believe we will be in a very unfortunate circumstance in the future if it is up to the chair to determine whether or not a senator is allowed to seek leave from the chamber in relation to a particular matter. I invite the Procedure Committee to have a look at that.

Further, I submit that, if there is a procedural requirement to seek leave and a senator fails to do so, it is a dangerous precedent for the chair to interpret that as a deliberate choice and therefore deny the opportunity to seek leave to address the formality issue. I can foresee circumstances—which have happened to senators on all sides of the chamber—where senators get on their feet, start talking and are reminded by the chair that to proceed they have to seek leave. The senator stops, seeks leave and if it is granted then things proceed. In the statement that the President has just made we are advised:

Senator Abetz subsequently indicated that he considered that his question should be treated as a question under standing order 72(1) ...

I have perused the Hansard. At 2.21 pm I asked the question. We then had a flurry of points of order. Again in the Hansard, at around about 2.22.30 pm, I get to my feet and say:

Thank you, Mr President. I do not seek to canvass that approach, but I seek leave to ask the question.

At no time, on my reading of the Hansard, unless I have overlooked something, could it be asserted that I indicated that I considered that my question should be treated as a question under standing order 72(1). My good friend and colleague Senator Ellison said that, and that is fine. But my rights as an individual senator cannot be prejudiced by the intervention of another senator in relation to a point of order. What is more, I am respectfully saying that on my reading of the Hansard I did not indicate that I was relying on standing order 72(1). I asked a question. Opposition senators interjected saying, ‘Leave is required.’ There was a whole host of points of order. The President ruled on all those points of order. I then got up and said, ‘I don’t want to canvass any of that; I seek leave to ask the question.’ And then that was denied by the chair. I honestly believe that the factual—