Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, because that is the difficulty in trying to fashion words to find the response that you want. In doing so, you have read words that are not in the standing orders into the document. You could easily come to the conclusion that, where the chair says, for example, that the minister has 23 seconds remaining, you have effectively determined the matter by referring it back to the minister—by indicating that they have 23 seconds to finalise their answer. The standing orders do not say and do not require that the chair has to decisively say, ‘I agree with the point of order that has been raised’ or ‘I disagree with the point of order that has been raised.’ It is up to the President or the chair, as the case may be, to determine the matter in the manner that they see fit. In this instance, a determination that says ‘23 second remaining’ to the minister responding to the question is a clear indication that the point of order has been determined by the President. The standing order does not require the President to say, ‘My ruling’—in other words, a form of words that Senator Macdonald is trying to read in—‘in respect of this matter is X or Y.’ I am not arguing that Senator Ian Macdonald cannot raise the matter for clarification, but what I do take issue with is to then say that it has to be in a particular form and, if it is not in that particular form, then it is not a valid exercise of the chair’s powers.