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

What I say to the chair is that, with respect, I am not sure that it can be asserted, given my reading of the Hansard, that I indicated and considered that my question should be treated as a question under standing order 72(1). I at no stage engaged in that debate. Other senators raised points of order. When that was over I then sought leave and my request for leave was not even put to the Senate. I believe that that is a matter of concern because if that becomes the practice in this chamber then, when ministers or other senators forget to seek leave on occasions, the procedures will so tie down the Senate that it will become unworkable.

In relation to the President’s comments in the Hansard, there were a number of occasions where it was suggested that I chose not to seek leave. I would invite anybody to read the Hansard and see where at any stage during question time I said that I was choosing not to seek leave. In those circumstances, if simply the fact that you do not seek leave becomes the test—you do not seek leave, therefore it is deemed you have chosen not to seek leave—then we as an opposition might be asking those rulings apply to ministers in the future when they overlook to seek leave.

In the current circumstances it was my honest assessment of the standing orders that I did not need to seek leave. I am prepared to accept that that may be an incorrect interpretation. I would be willing to state my interpretation as being correct, but I accept that the President has made a ruling. But if the only problem with my question was that I had not sought leave—and that seems to be the basis, reading the Hansard, of the President’s ruling—then we have the unfortunate situation where if anybody does something in this chamber that requires leave but they overlook to seek leave, or they think they do not need leave but they do and that is pointed out, they are not given another go; they are sat down, ruled out of order and are not allowed to seek leave again. I think that would be a very dangerous precedent.

Having said all that, Mr President, can I repeat—lest there be any doubt—that I fully accept your personal integrity and the way that you have approached this matter, but I trust you will accept my integrity and that I respectfully disagree and have some concerns as to what these rulings will mean for the future conduct of the Senate. We are not going to be able to resolve that tonight but I would invite the Standing Committee on Procedure to have a very close look at this issue. I would also invite a reconsideration of the assertion that I personally subsequently indicated and considered that this question should be treated as a question under standing order 72(1), because nowhere in the Hansard can I find myself making that statement. I understand that Senator Ellison made that point and, if I may say so, I thought he did it very well, but he was ruled out and of course that is the way of the world. That is why, when I rose to my feet again, I said, ‘Thank you, Mr President. I do not seek to canvass that approach but I seek leave to ask that question.’ And that was when the chair intervened to say, ‘I will not even allow that to be considered by the Senate.’ I think that is a dangerous precedent, and I invite the Procedure Committee to look at those matters. I thank the Senate.