Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I have a point of order for the President, who has unfortunately left the chamber. As he has left the chamber, perhaps I can raise the point of order and ask you, and perhaps the Clerk, to refer it to him. I raised during question time, and did not want to pursue it further during question time, the provisions relating to the President’s ruling on points of order. Standing order 197(5) quite clearly indicates the President must rule on a point of order. It says, amongst other things:

The President may hear argument on the question, and may determine it forthwith, or at a later time, at the President’s discretion.

I assume, Mr Deputy President, that when the President says to the minister, in answer to a point of order, ‘You have 23 seconds’ that he is intending to come back and rule later, having declined to rule forthwith. It seems to me, Mr Deputy President—it is unfortunate I am saying this to you rather than to the President—that the President must, on every occasion, whether they are valid points of order or otherwise, actually rule and say, ‘Your point of order is upheld’ or ‘It is rejected.’ Simply to tell the minister, in response to a point of order, that the minister has another 23 seconds to answer a question is not a ruling on a point of order. The President has a direct responsibility under the amended standing orders to rule on direct relevance of questions. I would ask that the President come back with an answer to the Senate on his intention of ruling on points of order as they are taken.

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

Mr Deputy President, on the point of order: I am raising this issue on the point of order because I think, in part, the point of order that has been taken has been characterised wrongly. Can I say that the standing order talks about ‘determine the matter’ not ‘provide a ruling’? I did not want it left on the Hansard the way that it has been raised by Senator Ian Macdonald because—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do you think it means?

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

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on the same point of order: I rise to support Senator Macdonald in his comments. Senator Ludwig has raised some interesting issues, but nevertheless the original topic raised by Senator Macdonald needs to be referred to the President and the President needs to make a determination about some of those definitional issues but, whatever the outcome, we need to have some consistency. I think there has been some inconsistency in sometimes ruling on a point of order and sometimes not. Could I suggest one further aspect that the President may wish to examine and that would be that, once a point of order has been raised, if the President wishes to dispense with that point of order forthwith after the first speaker, that may stop, for example, the Manager of Government Business rising to his feet to also speak on the same point of order when the point of order is quite obvious in the first instance. The President might also wish to examine that issue.

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

I am quite sure that the President, or the President’s office, has listened to the remarks that have been made in the chamber and I will refer the matter to him. Can I say that, when I was in the position of President, there were two responses—either ‘There is no point of order’ or ‘I uphold the point of order’—and it was as simple as that. But can I say—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So what is your ruling?

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

I am not in a position to rule now, Senator Marshall, to answer your interjection. All I am saying is that I will refer the matter to the President. The President’s office, I am sure, will take into account the remarks that have been made today and he will come back to the chamber.