Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise for the fourth time to speak in support of your ruling, consistent with the way in which I think any independent observer of this chamber who has looked at the way that you have held yourself in your high office since December would acknowledge: you have carried out your duties in an impartial way which has brought honour to this chamber.

The fact is that this motion is the fourth motion of dissent from your ruling. When there is a bad Newspoll, you can almost, like clockwork, find those opposite performing a stunt in an attempt to distract from their own issues.

Mr Speaker, your ruling is absolutely correct. It is consistent with the rulings that you made yesterday. It is consistent with page 538 of House of Representatives Practice. It is consistent with standing order 90, which says:

All imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

There are avenues open to people in the chamber if they are serious about these issues. Standing order 100(c)(i) states:

(c)

For questions regarding persons:

(i)

questions must not reflect or be critical of the character or conduct of a Member ... their conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion;

Standing order 100(d) states:

(d)

Questions must not contain:

(iii)

inferences;

(iv)

imputations;

It is quite clear that not only was your ruling correct but, at the time it was made, that ruling was not challenged; it went unchallenged. When parliament last sat, the member opposite, the shadow minister for the environment, was excluded from the chamber for one hour for repeatedly defying your ruling. You then allowed him back into the chamber, a precedent which I do not believe had been made before. That was a generous precedent from you that was not challenged by those opposite.

Mr Speaker, you have gone out of your way to be fair in the way that you have presided over this chamber, in spite of the behaviour we have seen from those opposite in moving some 290 points of order, in interrupting almost every second question and in moving dissent motions just because the Manager of Opposition Business did not have a chance to speak. Rather than being the most serious thing that can be done about the conduct of this magnificent chamber, motions of dissent have now become a vehicle for an opportunity for the competitors for Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition to speak.

Mr Speaker, it is very clear that your ruling is correct, and that is why it should be upheld. It is clear that the Prime Minister has conducted himself appropriately and dealt with this matter appropriately. The Prime Minister has said that the comments were very inappropriate, that they were out of step with all parliamentary standards past and present. The Prime Minister has said that he strongly believes it was appropriate that the comments be withdrawn. With regard to the police investigation, the Prime Minister has said that it is appropriate that that police investigation take place without political interference and the use of parliamentary privilege to interfere with that, just as the previous Prime Minister did in this chamber.

It is extraordinary that this is all the opposition wants to talk about when there are serious long-term challenges facing this nation. We have inflation at 16-year highs, we have Australian families who have had 12 consecutive interest rate increases, yet we have from those opposite an obsession—

See this speech in context