Rulings by the Chair
Adjournment matters
The PRESIDENT (12:32): I wish to clarify a ruling I gave on Tuesday, 8 February 2022, during the adjournment debate. Dr Ratnam raised an adjournment matter for the Premier and in her action asked the Premier to write to the Prime Minister regarding immigration detainees at the Park Hotel Melbourne. Mr Rich-Phillips raised a point of order that writing a letter was not an appropriate action for a member to seek. In response I noted rulings by past presidents that advocacy is an acceptable form of action in relation to the adjournment debate. I stand by that part of my ruling. However, having now had the opportunity to review the Hansard record of Dr Ratnam’s adjournment matter and to look further into some of the past rulings, I am concerned that she did not draw a proper link between a federal matter—immigration—and the provision of state services or state administration. While advocacy may be an appropriate action to seek in further state member matters, a member’s contribution to the adjournment debate must always show a direct link to state services or state administration. Standing order 4.12(1) says the matters raised must be within the administrative competence of the Victorian government. With that in mind, I rule Dr Ratnam’s adjournment matter out of order, and I do not require a response from the Premier. I thank the house for the opportunity to clarify this matter.