Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With my utmost respect, Mr Speaker, I'd like to raise my concern about the question of procedural fairness in the House when it comes to the application of standing orders. Standing orders clearly identify that a member may raise a point of order on the issue of relevance. The point of order may then be considered and ruled upon by the Speaker. The Speaker has now, on a few occasions—and I don't dispute that we do, on a number of occasions in this place, have repeated questions and repeated points of order on relevance that may not always be appropriate. But I would respectfully request consideration of the application of standing order 86 in relation to points of order, which states:

… a Member may raise a point of order with the Speaker at any time.

So a member should have the opportunity to make the point of order, consideration should be given to that point of order and:

… consideration and decision of every other question shall be suspended until the matter is disposed of by the Speaker giving a ruling thereon.

I'm concerned about pre-empting points of order and not giving a member the opportunity to make it. Respectfully, I would say that in circumstances where a member is raising a point of order for the first time that it's not contrary to standing order 104, which is in relation to whether or not the point of order is vexatious or out of order itself.

I would like to bring the Speaker's attention to this issue and ask for a consideration of the interpretation of the standing orders in relation to points of order.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member. I will also hear from the Leader of the House on this matter.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, in the discussion that has just been raised there is a competing principle within the standing orders about the way in which a ruling of the Speaker can then be canvassed. There's a very strong limitation under standing order 87 as to the only way we can disagree if the Speaker has made a ruling.

The only two circumstances that I've seen this term where the Speaker has not allowed a point of order on relevance was where he had immediately before that moment ruled that at that point the minister was being relevant, so to take the point of order at that moment is to canvass the ruling. It doesn't prevent later during the answer a point of order being taken on that basis. But the specifics of canvassing a ruling are very common.

By doing it that way, members, it means that you still have the opportunity to make that point of order later. It hasn't actually been used up. In previous terms, the practice of Speakers, including the very well regarded Tony Smith when he was in the chair, would be that if he thought it was being taken in a frivolous way to not even hear someone. You would stand there and sometimes not get the call. The concept of limiting it to only the circumstances where a ruling has immediately been made is completely consistent with the standing orders and Practice.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for raising that issue. I shall report back to her.