Senate debates
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Parliamentary Language
5:23 pm
John Hogg (President) | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Earlier today Senator Brandis made a statement in relation to proceedings before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and a ruling of the chair, which the committee referred to me. I tabled my correspondence to the chair of the committee. In the correspondence I confirmed that her ruling was in accordance with the practices and precedents of the Senate and I explained the basis on which I came to that conclusion.
As I made clear, the issue is not the meaning of individual words, which may in themselves be innocuous; it is the combination of words that constituted a personal reflection on a witness who, under standing order 193, is a person who attracts protection from such reflections. It is not a difficult concept and nor is it a difficult concept that respect for the chair is fundamental to the effective operation of this place.
5:24 pm
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to ask a question of the President.
Leave granted.
Mr President, this morning in making the withdrawal of the words that were the subject of your ruling I asked you, in light of the precedents that I then referred to and that had obviously not been considered by you when you wrote the letter of 21 March to Senator Crossin, to reconsider your ruling. Am I to understand that the statement you have just made to the Senate constitutes your reconsideration of that ruling and, if that is so, is that reconsideration embodied in the form of a document that among other things deals with the precedents to which I have referred you?
5:25 pm
John Hogg (President) | Link to this | Hansard source
I simply reaffirmed the statement made in the correspondence to Senator Crossin, as chair of that committee. I just made the point quite clear, and I thought it was clear in the statement that I have just made now. I did not separate out the constituent parts of that. Mine was a statement of the whole. You asked me to look at an individual part. I did not make a determination in respect of the individual part of that statement that I made to Senator Crossin; it was in respect of the context of the statement of the whole.
5:26 pm
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) | Link to this | Hansard source
For clarification, is the Senate to understand that the statement you just made is your response to the request made by me this morning?