Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question to you, Mr Speaker, which relates to some incidents yesterday in relation to a second reading amendment I proposed to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing legislation. You may be aware that my office submitted a second reading amendment. We were advised that that was inappropriate and that you had ruled that certain words must be removed from the second reading amendment. I have two questions in relation to this matter. The first is that you required that the word ‘Howard’ be removed, that it was not possible to move a second reading amendment referring to the ‘Howard government’. I seek your advice as to which standing order or procedure required the removal of the description ‘Howard’ in front of ‘government’, given that it is a phrase commonly used in question time and indeed at most points during the day of the parliament. In what way was that out of order? Which standing order did you rely upon to demand that I remove that word? Secondly, you required that the amendment as submitted be altered so that it did not refer to the Howard government’s base corruption in relation to the AWB and instead that words along the lines of ‘the government’s collaboration with the AWB’ be inserted. Again I ask: which standing order did you rely upon to determine that the second reading amendment was out of order, given that it was a matter being moved, debated and voted upon and was not an allegation being made against any member of the parliament?

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

I thank the member for Brisbane. He raises an important question. In response, I make two observations. On the first point, as I understand—and I did take advice on this—in that amendment as originally proposed, but not submitted, there were reflections which would not have permitted a direct vote and the question would have been ‘that the words stand’.

In relation to the second point about the reference to how he would refer to the government, there is a practice that members have been observing for a long time, and that practice is included in the way that matters of public importance are framed. I think all members would be aware that we are continuing to follow that practice.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek some clarification of that, please. In relation to your requirement that I not use the words ‘Howard government’ but only the word ‘government’, I must say that I have looked through House of Representatives Practice, as well as the standing orders, and can find no precedent or reference. Indeed, given its common usage, I am not sure what you just said makes any impact at all on my question. Again I ask why it is the word ‘Howard’ cannot be used before the word ‘government’ in a second reading amendment.

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

It may be offensive to some.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, as has been pointed out, it may be offensive to some but I would have thought within the confines of standing orders it was at least parliamentary language. In relation to the question of corruption, I understand it is not appropriate to allege corruption against a member. Indeed, the amendment, as submitted, did not refer to ‘a member’; it referred to ‘the government’. Given that it was a second reading amendment which was to be debated and voted upon, if it is not possible to say things of that kind in a second reading amendment which is debated and voted upon, in what circumstances is it appropriate to do that? Truthfully, it seems to me a strange ruling that denied me, on behalf of the opposition, the opportunity to move a set of words in a second reading amendment which, I would have thought, in normal circumstances would have been allowed. If you could elaborate on your earlier ruling, I do not understand why the ‘Howard government’ is an unparliamentary term.

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

Again, I thank the member for Brisbane. In response to his last point about putting allegations in an amendment, he would be aware there are forms of the House that would be used to make that sort of allegation. He should be aware that, if he wishes to use such forms of the House, of course he is entitled to do so. Using the name of a member is outside the practices and rules of the House and I did rely on the advice of the clerks. If you would like me to get a more detailed answer, I will do so afterwards.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would appreciate it, Mr Speaker.