Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I have a question of you. Prior to question time when the member for Werriwa was speaking the only person to pay deference to the convention of the line of sight between the Speaker and the member speaking was the opposition leader. All others walked past that line of sight, which I thought was inappropriate for the member for Werriwa whilst he was speaking. I have been out of this House a couple of times since 1990. Has the convention changed?

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

I thank the member for McMillan. He raises a valid point of order. It is a standing order, not a convention. I think that, from what he has raised, all members ought to remind themselves of that standing order. This is a good opportunity to make the point. We might even circulate a note about it as well.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I just want to correct the record. The member for McMillan suggested that we did not follow that convention. I certainly bent, and I know that many other members of parliament did as well as they did it.

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

The member for Sydney has made her point.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I find myself in great difficulty. The honourable member for Melbourne asked a question of you relating to the standing orders which you would not encourage to go further, and you indicated you are only taking questions on administration. Yet when a government member raises what you called a point of order, you are only too happy to answer it. I am completely perplexed by one ruling about a matter where the opposition clearly needs to get a greater understanding about components that are not necessary in questions. We are seeking detail on that, and we are being told that we cannot make those inquiries of you. But, when an issue of the standing orders is raised by a government member, you not only allow it, you classify it as a point of order and give a very fulsome answer, which I do not object to, by the way.

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

I thank the Chief Opposition Whip. I am sorry that he feels perplexed. I have responded to the earlier points. The member for McMillan raised a question about behaviour and I merely made an observation reminding him of the standing order. I have dealt with the matter.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, as to your response to my question re the number of expulsions in the House, you say that it is not about punishment but about keeping good order. Do you not think there might be better order in the House if there was a perception of a more balanced approach re 109 versus four?

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

I make the point to member for Grayndler that standing order 94(a) was instituted at a recommendation of Standing Committee on Procedure. He might want to refer to the reasons for the recommendation, but I do not propose to comment any further.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In light of the concern that the opposition has expressed for the standing orders would you please tell the House whether in future you will give a literal interpretation to standing order 100:

(d)

Questions must not contain:

(i)

statements of facts or names of persons, unless they can be authenticated and are strictly necessary to make the question intelligible;

(ii)

arguments;

(iii)

inferences;

(iv)

imputations;

(v)

insults;

(vi)

ironical expressions; or

(vii)

hypothetical matter.

I am sure members would be so pleased if all those rules were applied to their questions.

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

I thank the member for O’Connor for his question. I do not propose to comment on that. As he would be aware, all occupiers of the chair endeavour to uphold the standing orders.