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

I table a statement about matters raised during question time today. With the concurrence of the Senate, the terms of the statement will be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

Statement by the President —matters raised during question time on 11 May 2010

Earlier today, Senator Bob Brown took a point of order about the use of the term ‘illegal entrants’ by Senator Brandis in a question directed to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans. Senator Brown claimed that as the description was arguable it was therefore contrary to standing order 73. Although I informed the Senate that I had ruled before on this question, I undertook to have a look at it.

I have ruled before on several occasions that terms of this nature are not out of order. My rulings are in accordance with established rules of the Senate.

Standing order 73 prevents the use of arguments, inferences or imputations, among other things, in questions. The fact that the accuracy of a term is disputed does not mean that it amounts to an argument, an inference or an imputation. It was on this basis that I ruled that the term was not out of order.

Past Presidents have ruled over many decades that it is not the role of the Chair to judge the accuracy or truthfulness of senators’ statements, and that statements by senators are not out of order merely on the basis that they are alleged to be inaccurate. This is a matter for refutation in debate, and not a question of order for the Chair.

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

I note your statement, Mr President, and I dissent from your ruling inherent in your statement.

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

It is not a ruling, Senator Brown.

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

It is a ruling and it—

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

Are you seeking leave to make a statement? It is not a ruling.

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

I am dissenting from the ruling that is in your statement, and if you rule that it is not a ruling, I dissent from that ruling.

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

The clerk has rightly pointed out that it is not a ruling at all; it is a statement in response to a question that you raised during question time today. If you want to seek leave to move a motion or something or speak on the matter, then it is well within your rights to do so.

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

We are in disagreement. I am in disagreement with you. I seek leave to make a statement.

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

Leave is granted for five minutes.

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

I thank the Senate. I will not take that long. I and my colleagues take this matter very seriously. You responded to my request, Mr President, to make a ruling on a point of order which I took in question time today when Senator Brandis on a number of occasions referred to refugees to this country as ‘illegals’. The point that we make here is that refugees coming by boat to this country are not illegals. It has been shown that over 90 per cent end up being classified as genuine refugees. The term ‘illegals’ applied to refugees is pejorative and worse—I will not use the terms that I think are appropriate to it. It is scaremongering and it vilifies a small number of people who do not deserve to be treated in that fashion. I reiterate that the people are not illegal and therefore the term is wrongly applied to them.

You would be aware, Mr President, that the rules of this place provide that you shall not use in questions put to the chair ‘imputations, inferences or arguments’. There could be no clearer case of imputations, inferences and arguments than people who are genuinely within the law being labelled ‘illegals’ in a question put across the chamber. It should stop. I note that you have now tabled a statement which points out that you have ruled on several occasions that terms of this nature are not out of order and that your rulings are in accordance with established rules of the Senate. You have inter alia made it very clear that you are making a ruling. You are reiterating past rulings. It is that that I am dissenting from.

This is a very clear case of dissent from a ruling you have made to uphold previous rulings—not on the question Senator Brandis made across the chamber today, obviously, but on similar or related matters. It is proper for me to be able to dissent from that ruling and it is proper for the Senate chamber to debate that matter under standing orders tomorrow when we resume. This is an extremely important matter; I would not be raising it if it were not. I am not at all in agreement with the statement you made to the chamber in response to my request to you to make a ruling. You have effectively made a ruling. I am dissenting from that ruling. I put forward a motion of dissent to you in the chair.

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

It seems as though we are going to get bogged down, Senator Brown. I cannot entertain a motion of dissent because I have not made a ruling. I responded with a statement to the question which you raised today. I indicated at that time, and I ruled today, that I was being consistent with the past practices in this chamber. I then undertook, because you sought to take a further point of order, that I would look at the matter and get back to you with a statement. I came back to the chamber this evening. I tabled the statement and with the concurrence of the Senate I had it incorporated. I do not think I have circulated it to other people at this stage. I wanted to get the matter back on the record. I am saying to you that I cannot entertain a motion of dissent from a ruling when it is not a ruling.

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

You have just made it abundantly clear, President, that you did rule today on the matter. Then you accepted my invitation to review that and make a statement to the chamber—in which you have maintained the ruling that you made today. I am dissenting from that ruling. I am happy to let the matter remain and for you to look at it again overnight. I do not want to have this prosecuted immediately, but I believe I am right here and I do not want to forego my opportunity to dissent from what I think was a breach of standing order 73 by Senator Brandis today. I could dissent from your ruling that you have not made a ruling. That in itself is valid. But, in one way or other, this matter must be tested before the chamber, President. I am happy to wait until tomorrow for you to look at it again, but I am not going to accept that I cannot move dissent from a ruling that you made today on the use of the term ‘illegals’ being valid when I believe it infringes very clearly standing order 73.

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

I think I have made the position quite clear, Senator Brown. The best advice I have—and I believe it is the correct advice—is that there is no matter of a ruling before the chamber at this stage. As I said to you, I did—and I will check the Hansardwhen this matter was raised earlier today, make a statement about it. I have come back to you with a statement that I think clarifies the position. If you would like this matter referred to the Procedure Committee, I am quite happy to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee for further investigation. But, at this stage, I cannot see where there is anywhere to go with the matter.

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

Thank you, and I thank the Senate for the indulgence here. I will have you refer it to the Procedure Committee. I take up your offer but, in doing so, I have to say, President, that there cannot be a circumstance in which a senator who has asked for a ruling and had a ruling made cannot dissent from that ruling. We are in a position of illogicality on the matter. I am happy for the Privileges Committee to have a look at the matter.

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

No, I did not say the Privileges Committee; it is the Procedure Committee, Senator Bob Brown.

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

Correct; the Procedure Committee. It is an important matter. That means that the Procedure Committee will report back to the Senate and at that stage a debate may take place on its findings.

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

That is a correct assessment of the situation.