SpeechPoints of Order—Purpose Retrospective Rulings and RelitigationMr SPEAKER: Yesterday the Rt Hon David Carter raised with me the issue of retrospective rulings on matters of order. I've reflected on that matter and on methods of disagreeing with a ruling of the Chair. Earlier this year the Standing Orders Committee considered the matter of retrospective rulings.An extract from the committee's report appears as Speaker's ruling 20/5. However in light of the matters raised it is worth referring to the full text of the report at page 14: There is a well-established prohibition on raising points of order in the House about events that have passed. This helps ensure that points of order address matters that are relevant to the maintenance of order at that point in time and are not themselves used to disrupt the order of the House. This prohibition on retrospective points of order is appropriate and we encourage Speakers to continue not to entertain them. We consider however that the Speaker is able to deal retrospectively in the House with matters of order if the Speaker considers it is important and in the House's interest to do so. The Speaker's primary task is to preside over the effective conduct of proceedings. Where an incident may have a continued impact on the House's ability to deal with its business the Speaker can address the matter. … Members should raise such issues privately with the Speaker outside the House. This ensures that the prohibition on retrospective points of order remains undisturbed and members can discuss their concerns with the Speaker away from the charged atmosphere of the Chamber. There is still of course a strong presumption that points of order will be raised immediately. As always rulings of the Speaker are final. A retrospective ruling on a matter of order does not reopen the matter for discussion."The committee intended that the Speaker could on his or her initiative deal with retrospective matters of order. It did not empower members to raise such matters on the floor of the House and in fact required them to be raised privately with the Speaker. While the event that led to the change involved a comment that the Speaker had not heard the report did not restrict members' rights to raise a variety of matters relating to the order of the House and the rights of members. The presumption remains that a point of order must be raised once and cannot be raised by a member at a later time—Speakers' rulings 20/3 and 20/4.Speakers from Guinness through to Carter have ruled that when a matter has been the subject of a decision by the Chair that decision is final and comment on it is not allowed. Members have a right and a duty to raise points of order where they feel theHouse is outside its Standing Orders but any attempt to bring into question the Chair's decision is out of order and is in no way protected by the Standing Orders. To persist in doing so despite warning makes it a highly disorderly procedure—Speakers' ruling 22/3. The only way to challenge the ruling of a Speaker is by a direct motion on notice—Speakers' rulings 17/6 and 18/1.Points of order are not intended to ask questions or to seek clarification. They are to deal with matters of order at the time they are occurring in the House or to draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that a member intends to exercise a right given by the Standing Orders such as making a personal explanation. I thank the Rt Hon David Carter for raising this matter. I will circulate this ruling immediately and I will be available in my office from 5 to 6 p.m. today and again next week if members require further clarification."