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

I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. Last night I was speaking to the House on the appropriation debate about AWB and the member for Gwydir’s AWB share sale. The Deputy Speaker intervened to say I was in breach of standing order 90—reflecting on another member—and refused to allow me to speak further on the subject. Mr Speaker, subsequently, I raised the same issue in the adjournment debate and you ruled that I was in breach of standing order 90 and refused to allow me to speak concerning the member for Gwydir’s AWB share sale. Given that standing order 90 was used last night to protect the member for Gwydir, why was it not used on 30 November last year to protect the member for Lilley when the Treasurer accused him of being the subject of a royal commission—that is, the Shepherdson inquiry? Why did the Deputy Speaker not invoke standing order 90 on that occasion to protect the member for Lilley, especially given that the member for Lilley protested at the time?

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

I thank the member for Wills for his question. I do not propose to revisit the issues from last night, nor do I propose to revisit debates from earlier in the Hansard.

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

Mr Speaker, I do not accept that answer. I want to know why government members are allowed to say anything they like about us but they are untouchable and off limits if we want to say something about them.

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

I will repeat what I have said. There are forms open to the member for Wills if he wishes to challenge the ruling of the chair, but they would normally be exercised at the time, and he did not choose to exercise that choice at the time.