Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—President, I thank you for your statement and acknowledge very much your indication to senators in terms of the standards that must be upheld in this chamber. I think it beholds all senators to reflect very clearly upon that, as I indicated in multiple statements yesterday and have done before, and to engage in ways where we focus upon the issues before us, the questions before the chair and the topics being debated and refrain, as the standing orders make clear, from personal reflections upon one another or engaging in debate in ways that undermine the dignity of this place or the ability to focus upon those important issues.

I acknowledge that in relation to this matter the senator in question, Senator Hanson, has withdrawn statements made. That is welcome, and I am pleased that you have acknowledged that in your ruling.

There is one matter in relation to how yesterday was handled that I do believe requires further consideration, and I indicate that I will be asking the Procedure Committee to review the withdrawing of the call in an ongoing sense from Senator Hanson that was undertaken yesterday. It is absolutely the recognised right of the chair to sit down a senator and to withdraw the call during proceedings for a senator if they are engaging in a disorderly way, and that disorderly way of course includes refusing to accept a request of the chair, as was the incident yesterday. However, it is not clear that to continue to withhold the call from a senator in subsequent proceedings is at all empowered within precedent and certainly not within standing orders, and for all senators in this place the right to speak is of paramount importance.

Standing order 203 provides a very clear pathway for the removal of a senator should they disobey the ruling of the chair. I recognise though that you, in the statement just made, have indicated you have preferred a pathway, which I think is also a sensible one, to seek to not escalate matters and to give senators some time for reflection. So there is a balance to be sought there between a time for reflection versus the using of a standing order such as 203.

These are difficult matters for a chair in the midst of live proceedings, but I think the ruling that provides for any future President to any future senator, regardless of which party they are from or no party, to withhold the call and that instruction being carried through to all temporary chairs is something that requires proper, thorough investigation and scrutiny by the Procedure Committee.

If it is without precedent then we need to understand the guidelines and guardrails that exist for the precedent that you have set through the application of that ruling, or to determine whether in fact it needs to be more properly codified or whether there are other means by which de-escalation of matters in this chamber can be achieved and time for reflection provided to senators enabled. So I foreshadow that we'll be following the proper procedure and asking the Procedure Committee to review the incident. It will not be to revisit the issue itself that sparked that—you have ruled upon that; that has been dealt with at this point in time—but to look at the very important principle, constitutionally enshrined and enshrined within our standing orders, of senators having the right to speak and the very important role this Senate has in ensuring that that is protected for all senators and, if it is to be withdrawn, that there are very clear procedures, steps or standards in place for how and when it is withdrawn.