Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question's to the Prime Minister. It goes to the eligibility of members of cabinet to hold office. Is the Deputy Prime Minister a citizen of a foreign power?

Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen is warned. The Leader of the House, on a point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The House of Representatives Practice, on page 562, refers to the sub judice rule. I understand that—

Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Whitlam will leave under 94(a).

The member for Whitlam then left the chamber.

The Leader of the House will resume his seat for a second. I've made very clear my need to hear the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. Members interjecting wildly make that an impossible task. I've said this on a number of occasions. I'm now saying to the House: don't expect to be warned and don't expect to be thrown out under 94(a) if you interject. Members who have a track record in this regard can expect more severe penalties. I want to hear the point of order from the Leader of the House because I presume that the Manager of Opposition Business actually wants me to consider his question.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under the standing orders in the House of Representatives Practice, the sub judice convention on page 562 says:

Questions should not raise matters awaiting or under adjudication in a court of law. In such cases the House imposes a restriction upon itself to avoid setting itself up as an alternative forum to the courts and to ensure that its proceedings are not permitted to interfere with the course of justice.

Yesterday, Mr Speaker, you had not yet written to the High Court referring the member for New England to the High Court for adjudication. Today, as I understand it, you have written to the High Court. Therefore, I believe that question, which asks a very specific question about the status of the member for New England, is now subject to the sub judice rule, and, therefore, should not be allowed to be asked.

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members will not interject. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I thank the Leader of the House for his point of order. It won't surprise members that I've reflected on this matter for the last 24 hours and 40 minutes, since the beginning of question time yesterday. The Leader of the House quite rightly points out that the House has adopted certain practices in the past, and everything he read there was accurate. Members should also be aware that there are certain exceptions to this and the way the House has gone about things—for instance, with respect to a criminal matter where a jury is involved, with respect to what stage the case is at. I've considered this very closely.

In the first week I became Speaker, I said I wanted free-flowing debate, and my attitude as Speaker is that with the High Court—the highest court in the land—adjudicating on these matters, with the deepest respect to every member of this House, myself included, I am very confident the High Court is not going to be swayed one way or the other by what is said in this House. I say that with respect to everyone who has given an opinion, including that last interjector, the member for Isaacs, who has been warned and will now leave under 94(a).

Opposition members interjecting—

No, I will retract that—I've just been reminded it was a 'hear, hear'. I thought it was something else! All interjections are disorderly, but if it was a 'hear, hear', that's less disorderly than the others. So I'm going to allow the question. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems that the decision to not have me speak lasted 24 hours! Over the course of the weekend, we went through the process of renunciation. We received verbal communication from New Zealand before question time that that has now been accepted, and we're looking forward to the written advice turning up pronto.