Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, raised a point of order in relation to language used during question time. I indicated that I would reflect on the matter and report back to the Senate if required. I now report back on the matter and other matters that occurred during question time and later during the sittings yesterday.

Firstly, on the matter in relation to language used by Senator Brandis: the rules of debate in standing order 193(3) provide that 'all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections' on senators or members are 'highly disorderly'. It is for the chair to determine what constitutes offensive words, imputations or improper motives and personal reflections under that standing order. In doing so, the chair has regard to the connotations of expressions and the context in which they are used. As I reminded the Senate on 1 September last year:

… unparliamentary language does not cease to be unparliamentary merely because it is directed at a group of members or senators rather than to an individual.

Yesterday I was asked to reflect on the use of language directed at what I am taking to mean a political organisation or grouping. The terms used was 'machine'. This raises different considerations than language directed solely at a group of members or senators. Depending on its context, language directed at a political organisation may refer to senators and members, including members of other parliaments, to people who are not members of parliament or to both. To the extent that such language appears to be directed at any senator or member or any group of senators or members, it must comply with the standing orders. The difficulty for any chair is to determine instantly if that language does relate solely to senators or members. On this occasion, that was impossible to determine on the first expression of the phrase.

Where expressions are used which are open to an interpretation that makes them contrary to the standing orders, it is always open to the chair to ask the senator speaking to clarify their meaning and intention, and, if that meaning and intention is not contrary to the standing orders, to allow the senator to proceed on that basis without withdrawing the words in question.

President Reid ruled on that on 18 March 1997. Senator Brandis, speaking to the point of order raised by Senator Wong, clarified his reference, and I quote from the Hansard yesterday:

I am not suggesting that every member of the Labor Party or any individual member of the Labor Party is a liar. What I am suggesting is that the Labor Party as an organisation is a lying machine.

Irrespective of the fact that, by clarifying that point, Senator Brandis had not breached the standing orders on this occasion, I would ask all senators to consider very carefully the language that is used in questions and answers and, in particular, in debate.

Secondly, the matter of the use of the phrase 'secret commissions' was raised. Again, I undertook to reflect on the use of this term. Any remark which carries an imputation of corruption or criminality made in respect of any senator or member is contrary to the standing orders and, if made, ought be withdrawn. I do not consider, in the context in which the phrase was used yesterday, that it carried that imputation. You will recall that I required the Leader of the Government to withdraw other phrases which, in my view, did carry such imputations, and he withdrew them immediately. However, I personally find the use of such language, again, to be unpleasant at best. Whilst senators may sail very close to the wind in relation to standing orders, I would ask again that senators reflect carefully on the language that is used during debate and during question time.

Thirdly, Senator Wong raised a point of order asking about the content of a question. I note longstanding rulings of presidents, including one expressed by my predecessor Senator the Hon. John Hogg in the following terms on 7 Feb 2013:

You cannot ask a question about an opposition policy. You can ask about an alternative policy …

In fact, over 600 references can be found on that style of question being asked by senators from a variety of political backgrounds. In my view, the question was therefore in order.

Finally, a matter was referred to me by Senator Sterle in his capacity as a temporary chair. Later in the day an exchange between senators McKim and Abetz took place which the Temporary Chair of Committees, Senator Sterle, undertook to bring to my attention. Senator McKim was, quite properly, required to withdraw a remark that a senator had lied. He should have done so unconditionally. The phrase he substituted contains an improper imputation against a senator, contrary to standing order 193(3), and should be withdrawn. I do call on Senator McKim, if you would kindly do so now.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I withdraw.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McKim. Again, in conclusion, Senators, could I ask that you are all very conscious of the language you use in parliamentary debate. You are seeking leave, Senator Bernardi?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking leave, just to raise a point with you, if I may.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted? Leave is granted.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, you referred there to a question by Senator Wong about the appropriateness of a question, and you then went back to Odgers and previous rulings. In the last 24 hours I have written to you, because it seems to me that many of us as senators rely on the standing orders, yet the historical rulings attached to some of the standing orders seem to contradict the standing orders as they are now and appear for us. In the interests of clarification, I am going to suggest that you put together a working committee of senators to see whether we can bring the standing orders up to date and to be consistent with the practice of the Senate so that we can rely on them in trying to uphold the values and procedures of this place.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bernardi. I note those comments and I look forward to receiving your letter in relation to that.