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

My question about the urgency for releasing an interim report on Fuelwatch is directed to the chair of the economics committee. What was the urgency for releasing an interim report on Fuelwatch?

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—That requires leave!

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

Mr President, on a point of order: leave is not required. When you look at standing order 72(1), you see it states:

... questions may be put ... to other senators relating to any matter connected with the business on the Notice Paper of which such senators have charge.

When you look at page 43 of the Notice Paper, you see that there is an inquiry which is extant, and Senator Hurley is chair of the committee which is writing that report. In support of that, I refer to standing order 38(5), which says that the chairman of a committee shall sign such a report and is responsible for that. That reinforces the fact that Senator Hurley indeed has charge of a matter related to business on the Notice Paper. So certainly 72(1) allows a question to be put to other senators relating to any matter connected with the business on the Notice Paper of which such senators have charge. On the basis of those two arguments, Senator Abetz’s question is in order.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: it is obviously for you to rule on the standing orders, but in my experience in this chamber when a question of a chair has been sought to occur the courtesies have required that the questioner notify the chair prior to the meeting. If someone is genuinely seeking information, one would provide the normal courtesies. If one has run out of ideas after two questions to ministers, it just looks like a stunt. It looks like a stunt because it is a stunt, Mr President, and I ask you to urge the senator to follow proper process and courtesies.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! When people are on their feet they are entitled to be heard in silence, and I do not care which side of the floor they are speaking from.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: there is no convention, practice or procedure such as Senator Evans refers to. That is a fiction of his imagination. It is perfectly legitimate under standing order 72(1), to which Senator Ellison referred, for a senator, in questions without notice, to refer a question to another senator relating to any matter connected with the business on the Notice Paper of which such senator has charge. This is a perfectly proper question. There should be no opposition or angst from the Labor Party. It is perfectly proper for the chairman of the committee to respond to this question and I ask that you rule accordingly.

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

Mr President, on the point of order: standing order 72(2)(a) states:

A question may be put to the chairman of a committee relating to the activities of that committee, provided that:

(a) unless leave of the Senate is granted for the question to be asked without notice, it may be asked only on notice.

There has been no indication from Senator Abetz that notice has been given in respect of this question so, without that, it does require leave of the Senate for the matter to be sought.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I rule that the question is not in order. I have taken advice from the Clerk, and I believe that the advice that has been provided to me and my reading of the standing orders are correct. I will review the matter after question time and take further advice and I will report back to the chamber at a later time.

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

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

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have ruled on the point of order. You did ask the question and, you having asked the question, I have ruled on the point of order that the question was not in order.

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

Mr President, on a point of order: with great respect, what you have ruled is that no question can be asked. You have not ruled the question out of order. We have not even got to that first base. You are saying in your ruling, as I understand it—and I do not want to canvass that—that I cannot ask a question without leave. Therefore, I am now seeking leave. You have not ruled the question out of order as offending against the provisions of the standing orders.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I think what you indicated was that you were not prepared to allow Senator Abetz to ask the question under standing order 72(1). Senator Abetz now quite properly, and in response to your ruling, is seeking to ask the question under standing order 72(2), under which a question may be put to the chairman of a committee relating to the activities of that committee in accordance with leave being granted.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I do not know how many cracks Senator Abetz will get at trying to ask the question. He got the call. His question was ruled out of order. It seems to me that we ought to give the call to the next questioner.

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

Mr President, on the point of order: even those opposite in the government were saying that leave needed to be sought and that was the proper process to adopt. Senator Abetz is now doing that, as Senator Minchin has pointed out, in accordance with standing order 72(2)(a). That is the authority for this course of action. It is now an entirely different process.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: as has been pointed out, standing order 72(2)(a) indicates:

... unless leave of the Senate is granted for the question to be asked without notice, it may be asked only on notice.

Now we have the situation that the shadow minister is requesting leave of the Senate. I submit to you, Mr President, that it is clearly within the spirit and letter of this standing order for either leave not to be granted or, if leave is granted by senators in the chamber, the relevant chair of a committee to take the matter as a question on notice.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I refer to standing order 72(1), where it states that questions may be asked of:

... other senators relating to any matter connected with the business on the Notice Paper ...

I ask, Mr President, can questions connected with the business on the Notice Paper still be asked?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: clearly the sequence is that Senator Abetz, knowing that if he were to be allowed to proceed should have sought leave, did not do so. He asked the question without seeking leave. You ruled that the question was out of order and it remains out of order. You made your judgement and it was too late then for Senator Abetz to go back and seek leave. Maybe the next questioner should try that option.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: we seem to be debating a point of order in relation to the fact that Senator Abetz sought leave to ask a question. As I understand it, a senator is allowed to seek leave at any time to speak in this chamber.

Honourable Senator:

The President did not put that point in the chamber.

Honourable Senator:

Yes, he did.

Honourable Senator:

No, he did not.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me! I think the President will say what the President said—from either side. Can I say that in the first instance Senator Abetz rose to ask a question of the chair of the economics committee. That question was put without notice and I was asked to rule on that point. I ruled that the question was out of order because it was not in compliance with the standing orders. The standing orders as I read them and on the advice of the Clerk provide that ‘unless leave of the Senate is granted for the question to be asked without notice’, and that was not sought in the first instance, ‘it may be asked only on notice’. It was on that basis that I ruled the question out. To those who are putting the case to me that it was sought in the first instance, I do not think that that was put to me; it was subsequently sought by Senator Abetz that leave be granted. I would say that in the first instance the opportunity for the question to be asked was given, the appropriate standing order was applied, and this is a second time at asking the question. I would therefore move on to the next question and that is the question to be asked by the Greens.

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

On a point of order, Mr President: I would ask you to have a very, very close look at that ruling because many, many a time honourable senators from all sides seek the call and start talking. When they are then told by the chair, ‘Sorry, you need leave to ask or to proceed down that track,’ the senator is then given the opportunity to seek leave from the Senate. That is the procedure.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Abetz is entitled to be heard.

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

That is the long, time honoured tradition that I have followed. In the event you are seeking to rule otherwise, when people ask for a personal explanation or something and forget to ask for leave in the first place, they will be sat down and will not be allowed to continue. I personally think that would be a very dangerous precedent not because of the question I am seeking to ask—albeit a very important one—but because of the precedent it will set for every other senator.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I would suggest that given that there would be quite a few Australians listening to this debacle, not debate, a bit of leniency with regard to allowing the question to be asked on seeking leave would make sense. Frankly, we are wasting time.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I really do believe, as you consider your ruling, which I think is an accurate and sage ruling—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, John. That helps us!

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad you appreciate it too and I am glad that you are listening at this stage—it is unusual for you. Standing order 72(2) says:

A question may be put to the chairman of a committee relating to the activities of that committee, provided that:

(a) unless leave of the Senate is granted for the question to be asked without notice, it may be asked only on notice.

We know in relation to this, Mr President, that through ignorance the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who did not have an understanding of the standing orders of the Senate, did not comply with the standing orders of the Senate when he asked his question. As a result, quite properly, Mr President, you ruled that question out of order, as you should have. That is the status we have at the moment. I thought in my earlier point of order I outlined the options that were available to the Senate. I also might say in support of this point of order that I admit—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are now debating the issue, Senator Faulkner.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me conclude my point of order by saying that in the 19 years I have been here this, of course, is absolutely unprecedented and I suggest that members of the opposition look at the precedents their colleagues established during the life of the previous government when they acted very differently on these matters.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: a piece of advice that you may concur with is that the question has not been received, because you did not allow it, by the senator to whom it was aimed. You are making a considered ruling on the way in which that question was put. Were the opposition to now put the question seeking leave then the legitimate form of approach would be made and we could proceed.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Minchin, I cannot ask you to proceed whilst your colleagues are interrupting.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I would put to you that you have denied Senator Abetz the opportunity to ask his question of the chairman of the economics committee as a result of your interpretation of standing orders 72(1) and (2). I would therefore submit to you that it is proper that you now give Senator Abetz the opportunity to ask a question of a minister. That is the proper order of events. You denied him the opportunity to ask his question properly of the chairman of the economics committee. Now it is proper that you give the opposition the opportunity to ask a question according to the standing orders, under your interpretation, of a minister.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the last point of order, there was no attempt at any time to deny Senator Abetz the right to ask his primary question—at no time. Senator Abetz received the call, stood up and asked his question. That is what Senator Abetz did. I called him as I call everyone. The other thing that I want to address very briefly is that I said that I would take this away and consider it and come back with further comments to the chamber. This is not a precedent for any other part of the operation of this chamber. I completely refute that. This is simply about keeping order in question time.

Before question time, I am given a copy of the order of questions in question time. The order of questions in question time—and I can read it out for those who would like it read—reasonably distributes questions between the opposition, the government, the minor parties and the Independents in this place. It is still within the province of the opposition, having had that question ruled out of order, to have a member who will receive the call at a later stage in question time ask that question. It can be asked at that stage with a request for leave in the first instance, as it should have been asked—in my view—by Senator Abetz.

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

Senator Abetz interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I am not going to debate it with you. I have ruled on the first issue. I ruled that the question was out of order. The opportunity still remains. The debate that is taking place at this stage, while very interesting, is not helping, I believe, the conduct of the business of this chamber. I will continue to stick with my initial ruling. I am not going to change that. I said that I would take it away and look at the situation, and I will come back with a more detailed response to the chamber. I would advise those in the opposition that if they want to raise that question subsequently in this question time they should do so by leave. I would then have no problem putting that question to the chamber. But I believe that in the first instance Senator Abetz did have the opportunity to raise the issue by leave and chose not to. He chose to go down the path—

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

Senator Abetz interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, you had the opportunity. You chose not to take it. I was then asked to rule on a point of order, and I have done so. I will proceed to the next question, which is a question—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I would also like you to give a ruling on the question that I asked, which was, in the first instance, about section 71(1) and about whether Senator Abetz had leave to ask the question, because it was a matter connected with business on the Notice Paper of which other senators have charge.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will get a ruling on that for you as well.