Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, this is a question to you and it is asked not with any malice nor to prolong an unfortunate incident. I ask you to reflect on an incident that occurred in respect of the member for Moncrieff when he was excluded from the House under 94(a) on the Friday afternoon that we have been discussing today. He was excluded under 94(a) and indeed escorted from the chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms. It seems to me, then, that you imposed the penalty and that it was executed in his removal. The business of the House continued, albeit somewhat disruptively, for a number of minutes and you subsequently said, ‘I name him.’ I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that that was improper, as it would constitute a double jeopardy, and I ask you to reflect on that and report back to the House.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have indicated to the House, it is not my intention to enter into a question and answer session about the proceedings of the parliament. I will make an exception in this case because I just wish to remind the member for Hinkler that I thanked the member for Boothby for his primer about what was the appropriate action that I should take, having invited the Serjeant-at-Arms to escort a member from the chamber and that I was obliged to name him. That is how we proceeded to that point. As to whether we should then blame the member for Boothby for the action that happened to the member for Moncrieff, I do not think we should be that harsh. But that was simply the course of action that was carried out. Intuitively, I may have been trying to give the member for Moncrieff an hour, but having been reminded of my obligations we got to the point in time which had its conclusion today. So the doc will have to answer to the member for Moncrieff.