Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Let us clarify one matter that Senator Sherry touched on in relation to Senator Abetz. On your ruling, Mr President, Senator Abetz’s mistake was not to seek leave at the outset of asking that question. That is really the issue here. He failed to seek that leave, and that is something which many senators in this chamber do. As a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I give notice that I want to raise the issue of seeking leave. I think at no stage and under no circumstance should a senator ever be stopped from seeking leave. If that is not clear, I think it should be put into the standing orders of this Senate. If this Senate is to pretend to be the guardian of free speech and all the things people like to say about the Senate and its committees, and yet it is true that in any proceedings in this chamber a senator can be denied that opportunity to seek leave, we have a very serious problem indeed in this chamber. I think that needs to be addressed as a very serious issue.

I accept the ruling, and the ruling will indicate that there are situations where you can stop a senator from seeking leave. If that is the case, then the standing orders should be fixed because, in my opinion, no senator should ever be stopped from seeking leave. That is a right that should exist for each and every senator in the chamber in all circumstances. Whether or not that leave is granted is another matter, but it should be made very clear in the standing orders. I think, with respect, the standing orders could be clearer. When I look at how standing orders 72(1) and 72(2) interact, I have some very serious questions indeed as to why you even have them. You could make the wording a lot clearer. In fact, the drafting is really not clear; I have seen much clearer drafting in my day, I can tell you. Why would you have a situation where senators can ask a question of other senators relating to any matter connected with the business on the Notice Paper and then go on to prescribe how questions may be put to a chairman of a committee? Is 72(1) precluding a chairman of a committee being asked?