Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before we move to the consideration of the private senators' bills, I have a statement to make about the review I undertook of debate on Monday night during which unparliamentary and personal reflections were made against a senator and a debate that took place yesterday. The Deputy President and I have taken the unconventional response in issuing a joint statement. This is because we are very determined to ensure that debate in this place is of the highest standard and that unparliamentary language and personal reflections against senators no longer have any place in this Senate chamber.

We are of the strong view that senators must take responsibility for their actions and their words. Of course, we do have standing orders that ensure that high standards are upheld, but ultimately what is said and done in this place is the responsibility of each and every senator. We urge senators to always withdraw any language and/or actions that offend others and to do so willingly. When party leaders spoke yesterday they reaffirmed the commitment to the standards and called on all senators to engage in debate respectfully and to refrain from inflammatory and divisive comments and to uphold mutual respect for each other in this chamber. I refer senators particularly to clause 11 of the code of conduct.

Yesterday I indicated that I would review Senator Hanson's speech on the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 and the debate that took place yesterday in relation to that speech. The review included that yesterday I had repeatedly directed Senator Hanson to withdraw remarks which in my view amounted to personal reflections upon Senator Faruqi. Yesterday evening Senator Hanson made a brief contribution in which she withdrew any remarks considered unparliamentary this week.

Standing order 193(3) prohibits offensive words, imputations of improper motives and personal reflections against senators and members.

It revolves around the idea that there should be constraints on language directed to other senators or members. This is intended to ensure that political debate is conducted in the privileged forum of parliament without personally offensive language.

It has been my practice in ruling on unparliamentary language, as it has been for previous Presidents, to try and create the space for senators to reflect on the language they use in the Senate and to comply with directions of the chair. It is extremely regrettable that Senator Hanson did not accept the opportunity to do so yesterday after I made a clear and direct ruling in respect of the personal reflections she made upon Senator Faruqi. Whilst I accept Senator Hanson's subsequent withdrawal, I remind all senators that they should comply with the directions of the chair in such matters.

It would be preferable for senators to show each other the courtesy they are due as equals here, representing the views and aspirations of the people who have elected them to this place. While the Senate is rightly a place for robust debate, the standing orders provide the foundation for that debate to be conducted in a respectful manner. This is particularly important when we are dealing with complex and sensitive topics.

I also remind senators that wherever possible points of order should be taken while the relevant proceedings are before the Senate. In my experience, it is far easier to deal with such matters as they arise, rather than trying to play catch-up days later. This approach is supported by standing orders, particularly standing order 197, which allows senators to interrupt debate to raise points of order in relation to matters before the Senate. I thank the Senate.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—President, I thank you for your statement and acknowledge very much your indication to senators in terms of the standards that must be upheld in this chamber. I think it beholds all senators to reflect very clearly upon that, as I indicated in multiple statements yesterday and have done before, and to engage in ways where we focus upon the issues before us, the questions before the chair and the topics being debated and refrain, as the standing orders make clear, from personal reflections upon one another or engaging in debate in ways that undermine the dignity of this place or the ability to focus upon those important issues.

I acknowledge that in relation to this matter the senator in question, Senator Hanson, has withdrawn statements made. That is welcome, and I am pleased that you have acknowledged that in your ruling.

There is one matter in relation to how yesterday was handled that I do believe requires further consideration, and I indicate that I will be asking the Procedure Committee to review the withdrawing of the call in an ongoing sense from Senator Hanson that was undertaken yesterday. It is absolutely the recognised right of the chair to sit down a senator and to withdraw the call during proceedings for a senator if they are engaging in a disorderly way, and that disorderly way of course includes refusing to accept a request of the chair, as was the incident yesterday. However, it is not clear that to continue to withhold the call from a senator in subsequent proceedings is at all empowered within precedent and certainly not within standing orders, and for all senators in this place the right to speak is of paramount importance.

Standing order 203 provides a very clear pathway for the removal of a senator should they disobey the ruling of the chair. I recognise though that you, in the statement just made, have indicated you have preferred a pathway, which I think is also a sensible one, to seek to not escalate matters and to give senators some time for reflection. So there is a balance to be sought there between a time for reflection versus the using of a standing order such as 203.

These are difficult matters for a chair in the midst of live proceedings, but I think the ruling that provides for any future President to any future senator, regardless of which party they are from or no party, to withhold the call and that instruction being carried through to all temporary chairs is something that requires proper, thorough investigation and scrutiny by the Procedure Committee.

If it is without precedent then we need to understand the guidelines and guardrails that exist for the precedent that you have set through the application of that ruling, or to determine whether in fact it needs to be more properly codified or whether there are other means by which de-escalation of matters in this chamber can be achieved and time for reflection provided to senators enabled. So I foreshadow that we'll be following the proper procedure and asking the Procedure Committee to review the incident. It will not be to revisit the issue itself that sparked that—you have ruled upon that; that has been dealt with at this point in time—but to look at the very important principle, constitutionally enshrined and enshrined within our standing orders, of senators having the right to speak and the very important role this Senate has in ensuring that that is protected for all senators and, if it is to be withdrawn, that there are very clear procedures, steps or standards in place for how and when it is withdrawn.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Birmingham. It's most useful for the Procedure Committee to deal with this matter, and I thank you for your contribution.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the government, we acknowledge it is an unusual step for a statement to be issued by both a President and a Deputy President. I think that's actually a very positive move, to put forward the positions of all sides of the chamber on this matter.

We were very concerned by some of the behaviour that we saw in the chamber yesterday and over the last couple of days. I'll be the first to admit that my behaviour is not always great in this chamber, but I think most of us would agree that some of the things that were said in this chamber over the last couple of days went well beyond what is acceptable conduct in this chamber. We believe that you attempted to find a reasonable solution to the situation which confronted you yesterday and that you were left with no choice but to withdraw the call from Senator Hanson because of her refusal to withdraw.

I have been asked to withdraw things that I've said on a number of occasions. Usually, when you do, you feel you're in the right to say what you said, but the practice of this chamber is to withdraw remarks when you're requested by the President, and that's what should have occurred yesterday as well. I think Senator Birmingham's suggestion about some consideration by the Procedure Committee is a good way forward, but we absolutely support the statement that you and the Deputy President have made today.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you, President, and the Deputy President, for the leadership that you've shown in saying that this chamber will no longer tolerate, and that there is no place for, unparliamentary language or personal reflections and that people must take responsibility. I strongly endorse that approach. We are very pleased that Senator Hanson was forced to withdraw the racist language that she used. That is a strong statement of this chamber that racist language is not acceptable here or anywhere—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Before I go to—and I'm not sure who jumped first. I'll give the call to Senator Colbeck. This is a very serious matter.

Senator Cash, it doesn't require commentary. That's my whole point: it needs to be listened to in respectful silence. Senator Colbeck.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Colbeck, please resume your seat. Senators, we have just had a statement from myself, endorsed by Senator Birmingham and Senator Watt, about the need to be respectful. I've called for silence. That's what I expect. Senator Colbeck, please continue.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's unfortunate that in this debate we are having about respectful language—

It is a point of order. Thank you, Senator McKim—that we have a reflection on another senator made as a part of the debate.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, President, it would be useful if those speaking in this debate, which is about reflections on other senators and not reflecting on other senators, which has just occurred—I think that statement should be withdrawn.

I'm not interested in political parties in this context; I'm interested in the operations of this place.

An opposition senator interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Sorry, Senator Colbeck; please resume your seat. This is really unhelpful. This is really unhelpful, particularly given the context of the debate. I'm asking senators: if you wish to make a contribution, stand and seek the call. The interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Senator Colbeck, did you finish your point of order?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point is the language was a reflection on Senator Hanson. Whether we agree with Senator Hanson or not, it was a reflection on Senator Hanson. If this debate is going to be carried out in a reasonable manner, that sort of language should not be used and should be withdrawn.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Colbeck. Did you wish to make a separate point of order, Senator Roberts?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I do.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will come to you in a moment. I'll just come back to your point of order, Senator Colbeck. In a technical sense what Senator Waters said doesn't breach the standing orders, but you are correct: we are having a debate about unparliamentary language and the way that we refer to senators in this place, so it could be that a senator could take offence at the comments that Senator Waters made. I would ask Senator Waters to use that standing order that I have quoted and to refrain from using what could be construed as inflammatory language. I'm now going to go to Senator Roberts.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, President. Your statement—

An honourable senator: Is this a point of order?

Yes, it is; it's a point of order. Senator Waters was maligning and impugning motive to Senator Hanson that was not true. Your statement this morning talked about unparliamentary language. Senator Waters raised 'racist'—there was nothing racist about what Senator Hanson said. I need to get her to withdraw.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, in exactly the same way as I've asked Senator Waters to refrain from using language which could be offensive to other senators, that applies to you. You've stood on a point of order very similar to Senator Colbeck's, which I have addressed. I believe Senator Waters has the call.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks very much, President. I appreciate your ruling there. I specifically sought advice on what words were permissible to use that did not breach standing orders, and I stand by my remarks that are parliamentary and that are within standing orders—that the use of racist language is not appropriate in this chamber. It's not appropriate anywhere, but we need to be setting the standard in this chamber to help keep people safe out there. So I'm very pleased, President, that yourself and the Deputy President have made such a strong ruling this morning. I think it's appropriate and I'm very pleased that you've referenced clause 11 of the code of conduct, because that specifically, as I hope we all know, precludes discrimination in all of its forms by people in this chamber—and it will soon apply to Commonwealth workplaces everywhere as well.

If we are to give meaning to those words, then accountability needs to flow. And so I'm pleased that Senator Hanson was forced to withdraw her racist language used against Senator Faruqi. I'm very disappointed that she didn't take the chance to apologise to Senator Faruqi, as she should have done, but there is still time.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, please resume your seat. Once again, I remind senators of the need to listen in silence. If you want to make a contribution then seek the call, otherwise listen in silence. Senator Waters, please continue.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, President. And just in relation to the matter that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate raised about whether your withdrawal of the call was appropriate, there were four instances, President, where you asked Senator Hanson to withdraw and each time she backchatted and did not respect your request and defied your ruling. Our party believes it is entirely appropriate that the call was withdrawn, and the Procedure Committee may well look at this.

When we finally have the enforcement body that will enforce the behaviour code—of which clause 11 says, 'Don't discriminate against people on the grounds of race, religion, gender or age'—there will be a range of sanctions, consequences that should and will apply to people, for racial discrimination, for sex discrimination, for discrimination of any kind, as is appropriate. That will include withdrawal of the call. It will include being forced to make an apology. It might even include being removed from positions that you might hold on committees—serious implications. That's what accountability looks like. That's why we need this behaviour code to be enforceable, not just something where we rely on the good faith of people to comply with it. That's why we need the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, which is overdue. It was due to be established last month. It's late. We are urging both of the large parties in this place to work collaboratively to get that independent commission up and running so that it's not up to us to stand up for our colleague when racist language is used to impugn her, so that that's actually a standard that we are all bound by that is independently enforced. Let's set the standard in this place for the rest of the nation, because people deserve to be safe and feel safe.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

The matter that Senator Birmingham has raised is an important matter for every senator in this chamber. Our right to speak in this place is fundamental to the reason that we're all here. I agree with senators in respect of the way that we speak and the way that we refer to colleagues in the chamber. I agree that there is a way for us to go in improving that, and I'm supporting that process. But the fundamental right of any senator to speak in here, as a representative elected by the Australian people, should not be able to be removed without some process of this chamber. That's what our standing orders do. It's important that our standing orders properly support that process.

I acknowledge, President, that yesterday there were a particular set of circumstances that you were looking to manage at a point in time, but it is an important protection for every single one of us that we have the opportunity to stand in this place to seek the call and to speak, and then the chamber has the opportunity to express its view in relation to that. Anything that takes away from that diminishes the fundamental tenets of this place and why we are sent here. So I would just like to support and reaffirm the view that we should be making sure that it is not possible for any single senator—despite the fact that they might be sitting in the chair, albeit at the pleasure of this place—to remove the opportunity for any one of us, from any party, to stand in this place to seek the call to make a contribution. That's why we are here. That needs to be protected at all costs. Standards should apply, absolutely, and that's what the debate is about, and we cannot allow the right of any senator to stand in this place to speak to get caught up in a particular issue, because that then undermines the whole purpose and the reason that we're here. I understand that there's real hurt in relation to some of the things that have been said, and I am sympathetic to that hurt. I genuinely am.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not hurt. It's abuse.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I genuinely understand. But we must uphold the basic tenets of why we're here, and the standing orders need to be considered to make sure that that occurs.

It cannot be the purview of one person to say that someone cannot stand in this place and speak. That protects every single one of us.