Wednesday, 11 September 2024

Rulings from the Chair

Constituency questions

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I would like to refer you to guidance that was given to the house at the end of the last sitting week in relation to constituency question time and points of order being raised at the end of constituency question time. Since that guidance was given a number of members have raised with me their concerns about that guidance. I do note the clerks provided advice in relation to Rulings from the Chair where there were instances where a Speaker had ruled that where a member sought to take a point of order, including in 1999 in members statements, that the Speaker did rule that that member should not be taking a point of order in the middle of that session ‍– that is, constituency questions or members statements – which I think is fair and reasonable. However, as far as I am aware, there is no standing order, sessional order or ruling from the Chair which would suggest that members do not have an absolute right, under standing order 104, to take a point of order at the start of constituency questions other than if there was an attempt for members not to read out the delays in responses when the media was still in the room.

There was no consultation that I am aware of with the opposition in relation to that guidance. The standing orders are clear and there was no consultation – the Leader of the House has not spoken to me about it. I am not aware of the government being consulted. The custom and practice has always been that a member has an absolute right to take a point of order, including at the start of constituency questions. In my six years there has been no instance otherwise, and the clerks did not have any record of it being done otherwise. I would appreciate consideration being given to that guidance. That guidance may have been given on that day, but under standing order 104 I see that members have an absolute right to take a point of order at the start of constituency questions.

The SPEAKER (09:35): Thank you, member for Brighton. That is a good point of order and gives me an opportunity to address the house on a number of matters in relation to constituency questions. As we head into the September sitting break I would like to make a few observations about constituency questions and how they are handled in and outside the house.

From my quick scan of the questions and responses database – this is not constituency questions – there are several constituency questions and questions without notice still to be answered, and I remind ministers that the standing orders require these to be answered in 30 days. I ask ministers to use the September sitting break to clear the backlog of unanswered questions, and in cases where the responsible minister is a Council minister I ask Assembly ministers to convey the urgency of this issue to their colleagues. I do not wish to get into the habit of continuously drawing the attention of ministers to their responsibilities to provide timely responses to questions, but if there is still a significant backlog when the house resumes in October I will do this.

I am reminded that in early 2015 Speaker Languiller set down a process for dealing with unanswered questions. At that time constituency questions were new, and the house sought some guidance on how the house should deal with late answers, given that answers are given outside the house. There was some uncertainty about whether members should raise it in the house or by writing to the Speaker directly. The Speaker at that time suggested that members should take a point of order in the house and that he would then write to ministers to remind them of their obligations. This largely followed the practice set down by Speaker Smith regarding late answers to questions on notice when the 30-day deadline for answers came in.

Speaker Languiller specified that members should take their point of order at the start of constituency questions and draw the Chair’s attention to the database number of the outstanding question or questions. Over time members have begun adding the date the question was asked, which minister it was addressed to, the subject matter of the question and other commentary. None of this is necessary. Not only does it push the boundaries of what is acceptable in points of order, it also delays the start of constituency questions. Accordingly I announced this week and last sitting week that I prefer to hear points of order about unanswered questions at the end of constituency questions, which is, under Speaker Languiller’s 2016 ruling, also when members should take points of order about the content of constituency questions. It is a better use of the house’s time and less inconvenience to members with constituency questions to hold all points of order until the end, as is the practice with members statements and the adjournment debate. I also ask members to keep their points of order to the point and succinct.

James Newbury: On a further point of order, Speaker, you have just made a ruling today, respectfully, without any consultation of this house, in contrast to the custom and practice of this house.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Brighton.

James Newbury: Speaker, under standing order 104 I am entitled to take a point of order.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, there is no point of order. If you wish to discuss my ruling, I am happy to speak to you in my office. I am happy to meet you in my office or take it in writing.

James Newbury: Speaker, you made a ruling in this chamber. I am entitled to speak.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, I ask you to resume your seat.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The house will come to order. Member for Brighton, what is your point of order?

James Newbury: On your ruling –

The SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

James Newbury: A ruling has just been given without any consultation and in sharp contrast to the practice of this house. If there were a view that the practice and custom of this house should change, it should be done by formal motion through a standing order or a sessional order. The only possible reason for this change is to stop the media from seeing the points of order at the start of constituency questions.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, there is no point of order.

James Newbury: This is an inappropriate –

The SPEAKER: This is not a point of order, member for Brighton.

James Newbury: Speaker, you can see that this will cause disunity in this house and it will be an issue ongoing.

The SPEAKER: I ask you to resume your seat, member for Brighton. There is no point of order.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, I want to remind you and the house and the Manager of Opposition Business that –

Members interjecting.

Mary-Anne Thomas: I am raising a ruling from the Chair:

Taking a point of order is not an opportunity to ask the Speaker a specific question, instead the guidelines for asking the Speaker a question should be adhered to.

I want to point this out for the benefit of the Manager of Opposition Business, who has been in defiance of your orders today, Speaker.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

John Pesutto: I have a two-part point of order, Speaker. First of all, standing order 104(3) allows a member to raise a point of order and/or to speak to that point of order. That is the first point. The second point is that this is not a ruling from the Chair. With respect, Speaker, you have effectively imposed a new standing order, and that is contrary to the custom and practice of this house.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition, this is not a point of order.

John Pesutto: Speaker, with respect, I think you are shutting down debate and shutting down scrutiny.

The SPEAKER: This is not a point of order.

Roma Britnell: On a different point of order, Speaker, I would like to point out that the Minister for Health has a conflict of interest because she has a question outstanding for 90 days that I have been asking for an answer for. It is a complete conflict of interest.

The SPEAKER: Member for South-West Coast, there is no point of order.

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, your ruling referred to the convenience of members. I note that it is only non-government members who are inconvenienced by the failure of ministers to deal with questions in a timely manner, and I would ask you, therefore, to reconsider. It should be at the convenience of the whole house, not just those who are ministers.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Malvern.

David Southwick: On a point of order, Speaker, in your explanation you noted the fact that a number of questions have not been answered, and that is something that we on this side of the house have been very concerned about for a very long time. There is a protocol and a process by which, if changes were to happen, that would be discussed. This is a major change to the process in how things are dealt with. We have seen this government hiding for far too long, and this is just another example of a lack of transparency to shove off the fact of being unable to answer questions for months and months and months.

The SPEAKER: Member for Caulfield, there is no point of order. It is not a point of order.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition raised in relation to standing order 104, the Speaker’s ruling directly undermines standing order 104. Not only does the coalition have concerns in relation to that ruling, but this will have broader implications on, frankly, the coalition’s view of how this chamber operates.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, that is not a point of order. I have advised the member for Brighton and other members as well, including the ministers who have outstanding constituency questions and other questions that they have not answered – do so – to please come and visit me in my office if you wish to discuss this matter.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, you have made a ruling in this chamber and asked me to see you privately. You did not show me the courtesy of talking to me before making the ruling, so therefore why am I not entitled to raise this issue in the house?

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Members interjecting.

James Newbury: Speaker, you can see what the ruling is going to cause.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, there is no point of order. Members need to understand how to raise a point of order.

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Speaker, I seek clarification on your earlier explanation when we were discussing constituency questions and questions on notice. You did mention the word ‘adjournment’. In my time in this place, since 2010 – the same amount of time as you – points of order for the adjournment debate have always been raised at the start. I seek clarification. Is there now a change of practice?

The SPEAKER: The issue around the adjournment debate is very similar in relation to the content of the adjournment debate, and a point of order is raised at the end of the adjournment debate.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Speaker, I have five questions currently unanswered by the Treasurer in relation to his CFMEU affiliations. They are numbers 1459, 1458 –

The SPEAKER: This is not the time to raise these matters, member for Sandringham. They are to be raised at the end of constituency questions.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member for Sandringham is using standing order 104, which he is perfectly entitled to do, and I would respectfully request that he be heard.

The SPEAKER: Member for Sandringham, points of order need to be raised about the matter that is being debated in the house. This is not about constituency questions at the moment. We are about to move into introduction of bills and the business of the day, so the point of order cannot be raised. There is no point of order at the moment.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, on your ruling that members can only raise points of order on the subject matter, standing order 104 says otherwise. It says at point (3) that a point of order can also be raised where a matter has arisen. The member has decided at this time that a matter has arisen to raise a point of order to point out that a number of outstanding matters need to be raised and that has arisen now, and he should be afforded that right, as 104 provides.

The SPEAKER: It is a longstanding custom of the house that these matters are raised at the appropriate time when the debate is on in the house, so I ask the member for Sandringham –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: It is a longstanding custom of the house that points of order in relation to business of the house such as consistency questions are raised at the appropriate time, which is after constituency questions.

Brad Rowswell: I still seek the call to raise the matter now.

The SPEAKER: It will not be a point of order. You can raise your matter at the end of constituency questions today, member for Sandringham.

Brad Rowswell: So I am seeking the call and I do not get the call?

The SPEAKER: Because we are not dealing with that at the moment. We are dealing with the business of the house. At the end of constituency questions today you can raise your point of order.

Brad Rowswell: But there are constituency questions that have been raised which have not been responded to, and we are speaking about that now.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I am aware of that. You can raise these matters at the end of constituency questions, when we get to constituency questions.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, may I seek your guidance. I wish to understand why custom and practice have been relied upon in relation to not allowing the member for Sandringham to raise a point of order but custom and practice of this house have been overruled today on the practice that has been adhered to every single day in relation to members taking points of order. In fact the clerks were not able to provide me with a single record that supports the decision made today. I would put to you under standing order 115 that the Speaker’s role is to maintain the house, and on this issue the house cannot be maintained.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, that is not a point of order. Questioning my rulings is not a point of order.

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the standing orders trump custom and practice. The member for Sandringham has an absolute right under standing order 104 to raise a point of order. Custom and practice do not trump the standing orders. On that basis I would invite you to allow the member for Sandringham to put forward his point of order.

The SPEAKER: I ask members to appreciate that the customs and traditions of this house are as important – just as important. On the member for Malvern’s point of order, there are various rulings and standing orders in relation to taking a point of order and when a point of order can be taken. It has been, as I mentioned – and there are rulings in relation to this – that a point of order needs to be taken when a debate on that point of order is being heard and once, obviously, the member has finished a contribution.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, further to the guidance you have offered the house, a point of order, as the member for Malvern has rightly pointed out, can be taken on matters that have arisen. That is also in the standing orders. Speaker, it is self-evident that this house cannot be maintained when members of the opposition are gagged from taking points of order.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, this is not a point of order.

James Newbury: It is.

The SPEAKER: No, it is not. You need to come and speak to me in my office.

James Newbury: I can use this chamber. I have an absolute right.

The SPEAKER: If you wish to continue questioning my rulings, I ask you to come and see me in my office.

James Newbury: I am not questioning your ruling. On a point of order, Speaker, on standing order ‍115, it is clear from this chamber that at every change in business every coalition member will use the right afforded to them under standing order 104. They will use that right. We are making it clear that we have an issue and that any change should be considered by substantive motion. Standing order 115 is clearly not going to be maintained, especially when it disadvantages clearly the opposition and advantages the Labor Party.

The SPEAKER: There are levers available to the member for Brighton to raise these matters and to change the rulings if members so choose, but it is not through points of order. I ask you to take that into consideration as you continue to raise points of order that are not actually points of order.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I am perfectly entitled to raise a point of order in relation to standing order 115. I am perfectly entitled to raise that point of order. I am perfectly entitled to raise the fact that the decorum of the house needs to be maintained. It is self-evident now that order in this house is not going to be maintained.

The SPEAKER: The member for Brighton has spoken on this matter a number of times. Unless the member for Brighton wishes to seek leave to continue to raise the same points of order, I ask him to resume his seat.

John Pesutto: On a point of order, Speaker, can I invite you as Speaker to defer your decision today? You have, with respect, addressed the question of convenience; that was in your remarks. We have not been engaged or consulted to contest the balance of convenience. It may be convenient for some; it is certainly not convenient for us. We would simply like a genuine opportunity to engage with you, Speaker, on that question before you proceed. Would you take that into consideration?

The SPEAKER: It has been offered already that members are invited to come and speak to me in my office about this ruling, to discuss this matter in my office.

John Pesutto: Speaker, just for clarification, are you prepared to defer?

The SPEAKER: I am prepared to have a conversation about my ruling, in my office.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker –

The SPEAKER: If this is on the same point of order, member for Brighton, I ask you to seek leave.

James Newbury: I am seeking clarification of what you have just said.

The SPEAKER: The clarification has been given that I will speak to members in my office about my ruling.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, on standing order 104 and a member’s right to speak, from what I understand the Speaker has now ruled that members of the opposition cannot raise points of order in relation to matters that have first been raised in this house and that the only avenue the Speaker will provide is offline, off camera. Is that correct?

The SPEAKER: I think the member for Brighton has misinterpreted what I have said. Also, he continually repeats this point of order that seeks a ruling from the Chair that I am not prepared to give right now or the ruling that I have made this morning. I have already ruled on the member’s original point of order, and I invite members to come and speak to me in my office if they have concerns about the ruling.