Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some questions for you, Mr Speaker. I raised with you last night the rulings of the Deputy Speaker, the member for Page, concerning my speech on appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4, and you agreed to examine the Hansard. I have also examined the Hansard and wish to ask you a number of questions concerning the 14 occasions on which the Deputy Speaker interrupted my speech. The first question is: is it the case that standing order 76 provides exceptions to the rule that a member must speak only on the subject matter of a question under discussion, and that standing order 76(c) expressly lists the appropriation bills as an occasion when public affairs may be debated? If so, on what basis did the Deputy Speaker interrupt me to require me to ‘talk to the appropriation’ when I was discussing the Wheat Board scandal—that is, when I was debating a public affair?

My second question concerns the Deputy Speaker’s statement that the appropriation bill ‘is not an opportunity to attack the Prime Minister or ministers’. The remarks I was making—which I hope you have had the opportunity to read—were indeed critical of the Prime Minister and other ministers, but parliament is a place of robust debate, and my remarks were no more critical than many other speeches which have been made during the appropriation debate. Are opposition members no longer permitted to criticise the Prime Minister or other ministers in debates on the appropriation or other bills?

My third question concerns the Deputy Speaker requiring me to sit down—that is, gagging me—while I was quoting from the Prime Minister’s ‘Address to the Nation’ of 20 March 2003. Was the Deputy Speaker in order in gagging me? If so, are members of this House no longer able to quote from the Prime Minister’s ‘Address to the Nation’ of 20 March 2003?

My fourth question concerns the action of the Deputy Speaker in gagging me after I stated:

There is now no doubt that AWB provided kickbacks to the Iraqi regime and no doubt that it did so after July 2002.

Was the Deputy Speaker in order to gag me for making this statement? If so, can members of this House not point out to the House that AWB provided kickbacks to the Iraqi regime?

My fifth question concerns the Deputy Speaker’s continued interruption after he desisted from his endeavours to sit me down. I was discussing the Australian Wheat Board and he interrupted me to say:

My understanding is that the Australian Wheat Board is not funded by the government.

So what, Mr Speaker? I was discussing a public affair. The previous speaker, the member for Fisher—

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will ask his questions. He will not debate his questions.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My final question to you is: was the Deputy Speaker’s statement consistent with standing orders and House Practice?

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wills for a fairly lengthy series of questions. I will respond, as follows, in three parts. First of all, the Deputy Speaker is fully responsible for the conduct of the proceedings when he is in the chair. If members are unhappy with the decisions of the occupier of the chair, those matters should be dealt with at that time. The third point is that, as Speaker, I cannot sit in judgment as to events when the Deputy Speaker was presiding. But, in relation to the first part of the member’s question, it is a longstanding practice that Speakers do not interpret the standing orders or the Practicethey are there as they stand.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, further to the questions put to you by the member for Wills: are we to understand your ruling to mean that Deputy Speaker Causley—and indeed all occupants of the chair—should be applying the standing orders and House of Representatives Practice? I would put it to you, Mr Speaker, that that is not what Deputy Speaker Causley was doing last night.

Secondly, in the interests of the efficient conduct of the House, I suggest that there may need to be some discussion of these matters amongst the Speaker’s panel to get some consistency of rulings so that members of the House who are exercising their rights at any time of the day or night, including after dinner, can have some certainty as to what to expect in how the standing orders and House of Representatives Practice are to be applied.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I make the point that it is not the Speaker’s role to give guidance on the application of standing orders, nor would I suggest to the Manager of Opposition Business that she should reflect on the Deputy Speaker. I made the point very clearly in my answer to the member for Wills, in my response to the points raised, and I refer her back to that answer.