Corrections Bill

Mr Speaker, you have been recalled because members have expressed concern about the closure motion on the title debate. I have made my ruling. I have taken nine speakers in this debate, which I considered had covered the issue. The Chairperson presiding when Part 3 was debated said he would take into consideration the need for more speeches. I have done that in calling nine speeches.

Does anyone else wish to make a very brief contribution?

💬 John Carter: I would like to.

I heard the member’s contribution when I was outside the Chamber.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, and can I make a helpful suggestion. I think this is important, because otherwise we may well have this matter relitigated time and time again. The problem is that while proportionality is only one factor under Standing Order 102—and I accept that you, Mr Speaker, were present at the debate on this whole issue—it seems to me that it might be useful if at some stage we could have a considered ruling on this. I did ask for a considered ruling to be given, but the Chairperson did not comment on that part of my point of order. I ask that you now give a considered ruling. What might be useful is some sort of guide as to how we are to deal with the issue of proportionality, because there is no question that in the debate today we did get out of proportionality in terms of the parties that were seeking the call. I think it is important that we do the best we can to comply with the intent of the Standing Orders, and I ask you to comment on that, or give a ruling in due course.

I am ready to rule. I do not think I need to hear any further comments. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 58/8: “The [chairperson] is the sole judge as to whether or not he ought to sanction the putting of the closure motion …”, and that, of course, is how the matter stands. On the matter that Mr Carter raised, I too was at the Standing Orders Committee, and I understood that the title debate was to be a short one, where there would probably be two speakers from the leading Opposition party and one speaker from each of the other parties, which is the usual going rate that I allow when motions are put from the Chair. If necessary, I am happy to rule in that direction. However, I understand the comment that was made on Tuesday, and I think the Deputy Chair, Mrs Hartley, was pretty generous in extending the debate in that regard, but that was a promise that was given, and it was allowed. As far as I am concerned the Chairperson is the sole judge of relevancy.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was I who moved the motion to have you recalled. The reason is that I am aggrieved. I cannot question or challenge the decision of the Chair. But what I would like to have addressed is what I believe was the unfair way in which I was treated by the Chair. The Chair knew full well, some three calls prior to that, that I was seeking a call. The Chair looked at me directly in the eye on all occasions and awarded the speaking slots to other members. Now that is the Chair’s right and it is perfectly appropriate. I was keeping tally of the numbers of calls that each party was given. I then sought the call again, but my question to you is: what recourse do I have when the Chair deliberately looks the other way, starts to issue a statement, and not only ignores my first point of order, but ignores my second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh points of order, and then goes on to tell me that I cannot challenge her decision? Somewhere in here there has to be some protection for members who want to get their points of orders made, and want to get equal representation in this House, as they are entitled to according to the proportionality of seats they hold.

I want to say quite specifically that a Chairperson is not bound to give members advice on what recourse they have under the Standing Orders. That is for MPs to research themselves.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek a clarification of your ruling. You said that the title debate is now to be a short debate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I said that was what the Standing Orders Committee recommended. That is entirely the responsibility of the Chair, not mine.

So when you indicated that the nine calls that the Chairperson accepted in this debate was generous in light of the undertaking that was given on the Tuesday night, are you suggesting that, in future, debates on the title will be fewer than nine speakers, as a rule?

I want to assure the member that I will give this further consideration and come back on the matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is about the precise point that Mr Mark made. He mentioned, and I observed this very closely myself, that he continually requested a point of order. It is my understanding that when a point of order is requested, and it must have been heard, then it will actually be heard. The precise concern that he has is that he made it many times, and was, frankly, ignored. That is the particular issue for the recall of yourself.

That was the point that was made, and it is something that happened in the Committee stage. I am in the House now. I will certainly take note, and I will have a look at that and come back to the member if necessary.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have already ruled on it.

I know, but there is something that I omitted to say, and I think it is important. The point is that one cannot challenge the decision of the ruling. But that ruling can only be made if the person in the Chair continues to speak and give such a ruling, despite the fact that a point of order was started before her ruling started. To continue to ignore the points of order in order to get the ruling out is a deliberate ploy, I felt, to prevent me then challenging the decision that was made. I would like your deliberation, and I do not expect an answer right now. But I do feel that that tactic is unfortunate and only leads to total discontent on the part of the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly have a look at that matter.

In Committee

Clause 1 Title (continued)