Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to, but does not seek to relitigate, events that occurred last night at the closure of the debate on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. As I say, I am not seeking to relitigate them, although there have been a number of messages received by my office today expressing dissatisfaction with the procedure that was applied.

The point of order relates to Speaker’s ruling 53/6. I raised a point of order last night regarding that ruling, because it states: “The closure must be moved by a member rising in the member’s place pursuant to the Standing Orders.” The ruling given by the chairman, and upheld by you when you were recalled, was that Speaker’s ruling 7/1, in effect, overrides it and means that a member does not need to be sitting in his or her allocated seat, but may sit in one of his or her party’s allocated seats, for the moving of the closure motion to be valid. At the time, I looked at Speaker’s ruling 7/1. I sensed you were not in the mood to take further debate on the issue at that time, so I decided to raise it in the calmer atmosphere of today. If you look at Speaker’s ruling 7/1, you will see it states: “… the allocation of particular seats to individual members, by practice of the House, is left to the party leaders and whips …”. That does not imply that because someone is simply sitting in a block of seats that are allocated to that member’s party, he or she is meeting the test of Speaker’s ruling 53/6—that a member must rise “in the member’s place”. It does not state: “in the member’s party’s place”; it states: “in the member’s place”.

The reason I am raising the point of order is there are many times when a closure motion, often on less controversial matters than the one dealt with last night, is moved in this Chamber, and I think there needs to be some clarity. If the argument is that Speaker’s ruling 7/1 overrides Speaker’s ruling 53/6, I say that clearly it does not. There should be a better reason than that. I am seeking a considered ruling from you on this point that can be applied to future matters so that we do not get into the sort of situation we ended up in last night.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising that point. [Interruption] The member will please sit down. If the member reads the Standing Orders, he will see that I can always hear a point of order; I can then rule straight away—which I can do here; it is one of the easiest ones I have ever had to rule on. A member does not have to be in his or her ordinary seat to move the closure. Acting whips often sit in another seat to do it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I say that that does not advance the situation. There is no ruling that you have been able to draw attention to, other than perhaps the ruling you have just given, that upholds that. I was seeking some explanation of the grounds on which the ruling is made. The explanation given last night does not, on reflection, appear to hold water. If you are making a new ruling that means someone can be sitting in a seat other than his or her allocated one, I accept that, but my point really asked what the authority was on which the ruling up to this point has been made. To date, we have not had an answer.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: At the start of each Parliament, once the Speaker is appointed, he or she allocates seats for a particular party. Any member can sit in those seats, and any member of that party can sit in any one of those seats at any time, and can move any motion as required. That is not a new ruling; that is merely restating what is customary practice.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have noticed that recently the ACT party had occasion to relocate its seating in Parliament, and, as Speaker’s ruling 7/1 states, indeed it is left to the party whips and/or leader to determine where those seat allocations may be. But having made those allocations, there is a requirement for the whip or leader to notify the Speaker, for practical reasons. The broadcasting people have to know where every person actually speaks from, and therefore each individual does have an allocated seat in this House, and it is only the party leaders and whips who allocate where it might be within the block. So I concur with Mr Dunne’s sentiment. There is a lot of confusion here, and I do not believe that the ruling we had last night does cover the situation or explain it adequately.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think it does, quite clearly. The allocation of seats within a party group is a matter solely for the leader of that party. As long as a member is sitting in that block, there is no cause to question the right of a member to sit there.

💬 Ron Mark: Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter, and I do not want any further relitigation of it.

💬 Ron Mark: I will not take that as an intimidatory comment towards me—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, it will not be, and if the member makes that comment he leaves the House immediately. I have said I have ruled on that matter; I am not having relitigation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. To help some of us, and to prevent any possible misinterpretation by others listening that this may be a ruling of convenience—a misinterpretation we would not want them to gain—could you then please explain to me, at a time that is appropriate, when that Standing Order was first written into the Standing Orders of this House, because since then we have had some changes in the way in which seats are allocated and the proportionality is determined; and precisely why was such a Standing Order deemed necessary, if it were the intent that people could make their comments and move closure motions from any seat allocated to their party? It would seem that such a Standing Order was not necessary at all, if that were its intent and purpose.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: What the member says is very interesting, because that is precisely the point. There is no Standing Order concerned—none at all. There is Speaker’s ruling 53/6. In that Speaker’s ruling there is a figure of speech used, and I have interpreted that, as have other Speakers, as meaning that any person who is in his or her allocated group of seats can speak from any one of those seats.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What is the consequence of your ruling for the existing convention, Standing Order, or Speaker’s ruling requiring interjections to be generally made from the allocated seat of the interjector? It seems to cut across that clear statement of principle, which we have so often heard you announce.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is not affected by it at all.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

I am wanting to move on.

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: I appreciate your wanting to move on, and I am keen to do that, too, but I do need to have some clarification on just where we have ended up—and I am not challenging your ruling. As I understand it, you are ruling that the phrase “in the member’s place” in Speaker’s ruling 53/6 means in any set of seats allocated to the party to which the member belongs—

Yes.

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: —and therefore the ruling given last night that the closure had been correctly moved, because of the provisions of Speaker’s ruling 7/1, was in fact incorrect. It should have been because of the interpretation you have just placed, in your capacity as Speaker, and quite properly so, on Speaker’s ruling 53/6.

I ruled when I came back into the House that the motion had been properly moved and accepted by the then chairman of the Committee.