Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. Mr Speaker, in question time today you made a ruling with respect to offensive remarks and their withdrawal. In that ruling you appeared to rely on the rulings made by Speaker Snedden in 1980 and then 1981 regarding a remark about a group of people versus a remark about an individual. I think, with great respect, that the application of Speaker Snedden’s ruling was incorrectly made and I direct you to page 502 of House of Representatives Practice, in which he actually says:

In the past there has been a ruling that it was not unparliamentary to make an accusation against a group as distinct from an individual. That is not a ruling which I will continue. I think that if an accusation is made against members of the House which, if made against any one of them, would be unparliamentary and offensive, it is in the interests of the comity of this House that it should not be made against all as it could not be made against one.

That being the case, I would ask you to revisit that ruling and perhaps report back to the House, because Speaker Snedden specifically said that an offensive remark against the whole—

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

The member for Sturt will resume his place. First of all, and this will get the hackles up of some, I have indicated that I am not taking questions on process matters and that the question time to the speaker after questions to the executive is about the administration of the parliament.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

What a predictable response—nobody is ever going to sit there quietly, are they?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

And I am shocked perhaps. On the matters raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, it is absolutely correct that I have done Speaker Snedden a disservice because the ruling that I relied upon—shock, horror!—is that of a Deputy President of the Senate which is referred to in House of Representatives Practice. I might say to the present Manager of Opposition Business that this is a part of House of Representatives Practice that is well known to an immediate former manager of opposition business because this is something that was used by my predecessor in trying to explain these matters—and that went to the notion of the offensive nature being political or otherwise.

I say to the House, including the member for Sturt: whilst I have not dwelt on all the decisions that I have made, from time to time I do reflect on the decisions that have been made because I am trying to be as consistent as possible. On today’s occasion, I may have been motivated more by reflection on the events of earlier this week, which for me were crystal clear, black and white. In applying those thoughts to today’s situation, I may not have been as precise as I should have been. The point that I made today was that, no matter what decisions I make in respect of comments that are made, at the end of the day my experience has been that the court of public opinion judges us all. Whilst I stand by the explanation by Senator Wood on page 501, which has been upheld from time to time by speakers in this place, mistakes can be made, in that it depends on whether, as I said earlier in the week, things should be taken literally or not. That is what there might have been some contention about today. Perhaps we should all look at some of the other matters that are contained on page 501 which do not go directly to the offensive nature of comments but which are about how certain comments can be seen as not keeping the order of the chamber.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the opposition I thank the Speaker for clarifying today’s ruling. We look forward to continuing our excellent relationship with him.