Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Later we will be dealing with Senator Abetz’s motion 822, which states:

That the Senate notes the Prime Minister’s continued unprincipled attacks upon the Senate.

I ask you to look at that motion in view of standing order 193(3) to ensure its complies with that standing order.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator Brown. As I understand it, it does comply.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Standing order 193(3) reads:

A senator shall not use offensive words against either House of Parliament or of a House of a state or territory parliament, or any member of such House, or against a judicial officer, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses, members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.

I agree with the intent of this motion but to call the Prime Minister ‘unprincipled’ is not just a personal reflection, and it is more than an imputation of improper motive. I have asked you, Mr President, to rule a number of times before on this very matter. I just think we are getting into the practice where 193(3) is no longer being applied to debate in this place. If that is to be the case, why not abolish it? Why not get rid of it? If this continues, I will so move. If we have standing orders which by the efflux of time or by the slow movement of practice do not mean what they say then we should remove them from the standing orders. I do not agree with this ruling, and I think it is a matter that the Procedure Committee perhaps might look at. But if it is going to be a vestigial component of the standing orders, it ought to be removed.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I totally refute and disagree with Senator Brown’s consideration of this matter. The motion 822 reads:

That the Senate notes the Prime Minister’s continued unprincipled attacks ...

It is the unprincipled attacks not that the Prime Minister is unprincipled, so I refute the assertion in the first instance. Secondly, could I suggest to Senator Brown that he should defend the Senate as we wish to defend the Senate. We have been attacked by the government of the day, in particular Minister Albanese and the Prime Minister in recent days, about how the Senate operates. Those attacks are totally untrue. I believe that Senator Brown should be defending the Senate rather than not supporting motions which go to that end. We certainly reject the imputation that Senator Brown has raised under standing order 193. I certainly do not believe that that matter refers to the Prime Minister as being unprincipled; rather, it refers to the attitude of the government of the day.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order. At no point in my delivery did I indicate support or otherwise for the motion. I was taking a point of order, and the honourable senator might look at the difference between the two. I will explain it to him if he does not get it.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Latitude is allowed in substantive motions, Senator Bob Brown. That has been the past practice of the Senate and I am following the past practice of the Senate. Your point has been registered, though.