Mr BEAZLEY (3:54 PM) —I move:

That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

I went through the relevant standing orders in my opening remarks but they bear repeating here. They are quite clear-cut. Standing order 98 says:

Any Member may at any time raise a point of order which shall, until disposed of, suspend the consideration and decision of every other question.

It is quite clear. There is no equivocation in this. There is no discretion in relation to this. It is not a case of: if the Speaker feels like hearing a point of order the Speaker will hear a point of order; if he does not feel like hearing a point of order, the Speaker won't. There is nothing in this which indicates any intention to allow any level of discretion to the chair in the conduct of a consideration of a point of order—none whatsoever.

There are many areas of standing orders which are quite opaque. This is not one of them. This is one absolutely clear-cut standing order. In case you have not got the point about what the standing order means, it goes on to talk about another couple of standing orders which relate to the way in which the House will then be conducted. Standing order 99 says:

Proceedings on question of order

Upon a question of order being raised, the Member called to order shall resume his or her seat, and, after the question of order has been stated to the Speaker by the Member rising to the question of order, the Speaker shall give a ruling thereon.

It then invites you, Mr Speaker, not to simply pump the member from parliament when that point of order is raised with you but actually to deliberate on whether or not the point of order is valid and rule on the matter of wheth er or not that point of order is valid. The appropriate response to the member for Watson would not have been his discharge. The appropriate response would have been to deal with that point of order. If he were then disorderly, you would be perfectly entitled to discharge the member for Watson—or any other member of this House.

You do have the authority to discharge any member of this House under two sections of standing orders, at least one of which you have used twice today. But it is hardly a fair interpretation of standing orders—in fact, it is a unique interpretation of standing orders—to suggest that what ought to happen here, before any ruling has been made on whether the member for Watson has a valid point of order, is that he simply leave the chamber.

There were plenty of reasons for him to raise a point of order on this. In fact, you yourself seemed to be indicating quite clearly that you were going to move on the particular minister. This was one occasion when the minister was not asked a question which would allow him to transverse a huge array of matters related to a goods and services tax or any other form of tax on any education materials—it was specifically about private tuition. The minister, who repeatedly takes licence in this House with the standing orders to the embarrassment of all concerned, will always be likely to have this point of order raised on him. He is a minister who, generally speaking, is a threat to speakers and a threat to good order in this House. He has a number of cousins on the frontbench as far as evading the issue of a question is concerned, but he stands out among them, head and shoulders. This is a minister for whom standing orders is a matter of levity, a matter of jest, a matter of complete irrelevance.

He occupies this House with dorothy dixers day in and day out—for hours and hours—but when he is asked something specific he always fails to answer. He does not occasionally answer; he always fails to answer. It is therefore likely that he will frequently have standing orders related to relevance raised upon him and, indeed, that is precisely what happened to him here today. At the point when the member for Watson attempted to raise the point of order of relevance, the minister had had only one point of order raised on him by the Manager of Opposition Business, who, in response to the continued flouting of the question of relevance, was depressed, annoyed and of a cast of mind not to bother pursuing it, so hopeless did he think the cause.

But that does not apply to all members of the House. Other members are entitled to raise that question as well, and that question was quite relevantly raised by the member for Watson. That is all he was talking about—a point of relevance. The member for Watson was not heckling. The member for Watson was not abusing the minister at the table. The member for Watson was not abusing the Speaker. The member for Watson was not abusing anyone across the frontbench. The member for Watson was doing something particularly simple which, I would have thought, would have been a matter of routine consideration by the House.

It is not as though the minister concerned was being disrupted by the repeated raising of points of order which had reached a point of disorderly behaviour. It is not impossible for such a set of circumstances to occur in this House. It is not something which occurs frequently, but it is possible for it to occur. It had not occurred in this case. In this case, the matter had been raised once, and there had been, after the matter was raised, a substantial period of time in which the minister avoided the question entirely—avoided the fact that this government intends to impose a GST on tuition fees where it is privately arranged, as it is by parents whose children are in government schools.

Mr Reith —Mr Speaker, my point of order is one of relevance. Under the standing orders, the mover of the motion is required to address the motion before the chair, namely, the dissent. He, after six minutes, has run out of things to say, so he is moving on to the minister and the question of the goods and services tax. He is clearly running out of steam and should be required to get back to the motion; otherwise, he ought to just sit down.

Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition is in fact ranging wider than dissent from the motion, it is true, and I ask him to draw his argument back to that point.

Mr BEAZLEY —I am very pleased to do that, but it is necessary, in the course of my remarks, to raise the point as to why it was relevant for the member for Watson to raise these points as a point of order. If it was not relevant for him to do so, it may well have been a disorderly intervention on his part, even though you did not warn him or in any other way deal with the person as a Speaker normally would.

In circumstances where you consider his behaviour disorderly, it is relevant to work out whether or not there is a case for the member for Watson to be on his scrapers asking about whether or not a point of order was validly made. So let me go to the question so we can establish whether or not it was a reasonable thing for the member for Watson to be doing that and not to be pushed out of the House before he had a chance to complete his remarks. This was the question, within the standing orders framework, seeking clarification:

Minister, is it the case that the parents of a student who employ a private tutor from a company like Power Coaching or Kip McGrath, to assist their child with remedial reading at home, will have to pay a GST on the tutoring fees? Minister, can you explain why it is good policy for families to have to pay GST on remedial coaching?

What the minister was doing at the time was talking about whether or not there is a wholesale sales tax on foolscap paper. He was talking about whether or not there is a wholesale sales tax on pencils. He was telling you whether or not there is a wholesale sales tax on X, Y and Z. What he was not talking about was what he was specifically asked about and, looking at the way in which you were preparing in fact to handle the particular minister, you rather thought he might not be also. You rather thought that, on this very specific question, he might be in fact about to deviate considerably from the standing orders in relation to relevance.

Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance: the Leader of the Opposition is speaking to circumstances that are not relative to your ruling. I was close enough to hear the Chief Opposition Whip. The basis of his point of order and his persistence, which is of course especially prevented—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —Order! The interjections that I am hearing from the left are taking up the time that is allocated to the Leader of the Opposition. I do not intend to hear the minister in an unlimited sense, but I will hear his point before he resumes his seat.

Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, if a member persistently and wilfully disregards the authority of the chair, they can be subject to 304 or 304A. The point I am making to you, sir, is that the opposition whip was trying to make a point of order on the procedures of naming. Naming is not an exclusion to the House; naming has to be moved, and it was not.

Mr SPEAKER —The minister has made the point of order, which is something that I have been entertaining here, and I have been exercising a good deal more leniency towards the Leader of the Opposition than he is entitled to. The member for Watson was named on the basis of the procedures unrelated to the question that had been asked of the minister about the GST. I now invite the Leader of the Opposition to return to the dissent motion.

Mr BEAZLEY —It was actually dealing with both issues—the question of relevance and the detail related to naming. Your last words before you sent him out were, `If the member for Watson seeks to take a further point of order on the ruling I have given, he too will be named under standing order 304—he will be suspended under standing order 304A.'

Mr Speaker, as it happened—and I fully understand the reasons why you did it—the handling of a point by naming was incorrect in any shape or form as far as this chamber is concerned. If you name a person in this place, and it is perfectly within your powers to do so, this person then has to be moved to be exited from it, usually by the Leader of the House. By failing to do so and to back you up, that was a problem for him and for you, but it was a perfectly relevant thing for the member for Watson to be concerned about. He was concerned about both that issue and the question of relevance, which is the subject of what we are dealing with here today.

There is just nothing in House of Representatives Practice or anywhere else to permit the dealing with of a member while raising legitimately a point of order in this place. Nor is the person concerned in this regard, the member for Watson, a prolific point taker. He has in fact raised only four points of order in the current session of parliament. What the House of Representatives Practice says here is quite clear:

Any Member may raise a point of order at any time which, until disposed of, suspends the consideration and decision of every other question. A point of order necessitates a ruling being given by the Chair and may be objected to and a motion of dissent moved. A motion of dissent must be debated and determined immediately.

There are grounds for considering that a Member taking a point of order shall not be interrupted by another Member taking a point of order on the first point of order.

Which must be said to have been offended pretty regularly here. It continues:

The basis of this point of view is that as a point of order is an appeal or a complaint to the Chair in connection with the operations of the House, a Member has a right to make the point without interruption except by the Chair and have a ruling or decision given.

Mr Speaker, it is quite clear, under House of Representatives Practice and under the standing order, that your situation is such that you must hear a proposition raised. I would have thought that, if the point of order were to be raised under either of those grounds, either the ground of relevance or the ground related to whether or not standing order 304A had been appropriately used in the process of naming, the grounds are there, amply and clearly enunciated, for a point of order to be effectively taken.

It just happens to be the case that the minister concerned is a man who provokes these sorts of situations by his continued failure to remain relevant to the questions that he is asked. He might well wish to do so on this subject because this is a subject about which the government has a great deal of embarrassment. He is likely to evade questions. He is likely to create a disorderly situation.

Mr Ross Cameron —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order.

Opposition members —You're in the wrong seat. Sit down!

Mr Ross Cameron —I welcome the assistance of my colleagues on geography. The embarrassment or otherwise of the government on various policy issues has got nothing to do with this motion of dissent from your ruling. I ask that you require the Leader of the Opposition to return to the question.

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Parramatta will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. The Leader of the Opposition will focus his remarks—

Mr BEAZLEY —Mr Speaker, I think it is quite relevant—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition is not being assisted by those behind him. He has the call. I ask him to return to the essence of the dissent motion.

Mr BEAZLEY —I think it is relevant in a dissent motion, in these sets of circumstances where two sets of problems occur and are confronting you at the same point, to go through the circumstances in which these situations occur. If you do not comprehend those circumstances, you cannot comprehend the situation in which you find yourself making these rulings with which we have a problem. In that set of circumstances, the behaviour of the minister, both routinely and at the time, is certainly relevant as to whether or not dissent ought to be moved from your ruling.

It is quite understandable that the minister finds it difficult to explain when he is dealing with a situation in which private schools are able to escape the GST by having their tuition in-house but, as many people in government schools and in poorer Catholic schools experience, when they experience difficulty with their education and have a need for remedial education, they go to Power Coaching College and all the other colleges, which will now cop a GST.

Mr Ross Cameron —Mr Speaker, on a point of order—

Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Parramatta and the Minister for Forestry and Conservation will resume their seats. I plead with the Leader of the Opposition to return to the kernel of the dissent motion.

Mr BEAZLEY —In these circumstances it is often likely that you will find disorderly conduct which will legitimise the placing of a member of parliament outside this chamber. And then you will confront two opportunities. There is the opportunity to use standing order 304A, which is a recent standing order which assists the processes of the parliament by enabling you to put the person out without a resolution of the House. The other opportunity relates to the naming of a member, an older proposition but one which I am not sure that you have used, at least to this point. It is certainly used by Speakers to put people out of the House.

When you name somebody, I would have thought that a halfway competent Leader of the House would be on his feet to support you instantly. But we are dealing with a dope in this situation.

Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition!

Mr BEAZLEY —In these circumstances you do not get the protection that you deserve or need. Nevertheless, having not had the protection which you deserve or need is no reason for you to act outside the standing orders. When the standing orders clearly require you either to name somebody under that and be backed up by the House or to use 304A, you use one or the other, but you do not use both simultaneously.

I understand that you lack the protection of a competent Leader of the House, but that is no excuse to move outside what is required as far as the standing orders are concerned. What is required is this: you are not entitled to say to the member for Watson, under the standing orders, `If the member for Watson seeks to take a further point of order on the ruling given, he too will be named under the standing orders.' You are not permitted to do that.

The member for Watson raised with you a perfectly valid point of order. That point of order went to whether or not it was appropriate for a person to be obliged to leave the chamber without a vote on naming. That is a common, average interpretation of the standing orders—a perfectly reasonable point of order to take with you. For you to rule it out in the first instance, merely getting up and raising it with you again does not of itself constitute an offence in this place under any reasonable reading of the standing orders. The House was not collapsing in disorderliness. The House was not in a situation where ministers and other members could not be heard. The House was within the dull roar that usually accompanies question time, in a reasonably orderly situation, except for one person, that being the minister. Instead of the minister being dealt with effectively under the relevant rules in relation to the standing orders, people on this side of the House were being pushed out of the place in a heavy-handed fashion and, ultimately, in a fashion ultra vires the standing orders. (Time expired)

Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded?