Scott Ryan (President) | Hansard source

On the point of order, I have been liberal in letting people point out part of a question when there's a legitimate point of order on direct relevance. Points of order are not an opportunity to restate the question nor grab the attention of the camera by trying to restate it in a pointed fashion. The minister was asked a question about pensions. It would not be relevant to talk about other policies or to talk about a more general observation on senior Australians, but the minister was directly talking about pensions. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. The minister was directly relevant, and I ask those who are seeking points of order to treat the chamber with some respect. I will start interrupting them if they are not making a point on direct relevance but are merely undertaking a stunt. The minister was being directly relevant by talking about pensions.

Senator Wong interjecting—

The point of order about direct relevance was not raised by you, Senator Wong, so I'm not making an observation about you at all. I'm making a general observation that points of order on direct relevance at least need to make a claim about direct relevance, not merely restate the question. On the other points of order raised by Senators Wong and Cormann, I did not hear any personal reflections. As leaders they get some extra discretion, but they should not be using points of order to have a go at one another across the table. Senator Ruston to continue.