Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to make two statements prior to beginning question time. One is a ruling with regard to standing order 68. I hope the House might bear with me as it is a fairly lengthy one. However, copies will be made available so that people can see the statement itself.

At question time on Monday, 2 June, the Manager of Opposition Business raised a point of order about standing order 68.

The last paragraph of standing order 68 was an addition made at the commencement of this parliament. It provides:

If a Member has given a personal explanation to correct a misrepresentation and another Member subsequently repeats the matter complained of, the Speaker may intervene.

It is important to note that the standing order applies to all proceedings in the House and Federation Chamber, not just to question time.

This is the first occasion that an issue under the new standing order 68 has been raised and so there is no existing interpretation of the provision.

Interpreting standing order 68 presents considerable difficulties for the chair. Importantly, the wording in the standing order that the Speaker may intervene is a clear indication that the additional provision should not result in an automatic estoppel to a member speaking on a particular topic. Nor can it be allowed to be used to disrupt. Accordingly, any general use of the standing order is significantly limited by the following:

On the one hand, the standing order potentially creates a role for the chair to intervene in the free flow of information, discussion and debate in the House even though there are other forms of the House available for recourse. On the other hand, it is recognised that members can take great offence at misrepresentations being repeated when they believe they have corrected a misrepresentation, at times on a number occasions.

Achieving a balance between these two objectives is a challenge, particularly as I have said on many occasions that I wish to actively promote free speech and robust debate.

The wording of standing order 68, tying the intervention to a correction, creates its own problems. The standing order states 'the Speaker may intervene where a personal explanation has been made "to correct" a misrepresentation'.

The Oxford Dictionary defines 'to correct' as meaning to set right, amend or substitute right for (wrong). The standing order could be seen to place the chair in the almost impossible position of having to determine whether a personal explanation has in fact amounted to a correction. This could involve the chair, potentially, in a detailed examination of what was said originally and whether it amounted to a misrepresentation or whether a personal explanation had corrected the alleged misrepresentation and whether the subsequent statement is a precise repetition of the said misrepresentation.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, I consider the standing order should be interpreted in a manageable way. Thus I propose to adopt the following approach:

The difficulties faced by the chair are illustrated by the case raised by the member for Watson in his point of order. The matter commenced on 29 May 2014, when the member for Jagajaga made a personal explanation in response to remarks during question time, which she said were made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health. The remarks appear to be those concerning her involvement in the Hawke government introducing a Medicare co-payment and her position as Director of the National Health Strategy, which advised the then health minister Brian Howe. The member for Jagajaga stated she was opposed to a Medicare co-payment in 1991. In answering a question on 2 June, 2014, the Minister for Health stated:

Back in the Hawke years, Jenny Macklin, as the head of the policy department that advised Brian Howe at that point, said that a co-payment was necessary to make Medicare sustainable.

It was at this point that the member for Watson raised his point of order under standing order 68 and said:

The Minister for Health is now precisely providing information which the member for Jagajaga has previously explained to the House is false.

In this case the minister is quite entitled to make reference to earlier history which is on the record. The only occasion for the chair to intervene under standing order 68 is if there is a very specific reference to the matter where the member has corrected the misrepresentation.

I note that the minister referred to the member for Jagajaga's role as the head of a policy unit that provided advice to the then government. This is quite legitimate. However, the inclusion of the word 'said', that is, implying the member for Jagajaga stated her support for a co-payment, would seem to invoke the provisions of standing order 68. But if the words were, for instance, that the policy unit headed by Ms Macklin advocated a co-payment, it would seem not to invoke standing order 68.

I trust that members will show a degree of tolerance towards whomever is in the chair as those who occupy the chair endeavour to apply the standing order in a way which is as fair as possible to all members and does not inhibit the free flow of information, discussion and debate.

I propose to re-evaluate this approach after a period to assess whether there are any undesirable consequences, particularly on the free flow of debate.

See this speech in context