Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I refer to House of Representatives Standing and Sessional Orders and in particular to standing order 47, which is about the suspension of standing orders. I refer to actions taken under standing order 89, which is about motions that a member be no longer heard. I would ask you in your capacity as Speaker to examine any precedents in standing orders or indeed in reps practice that occur in the same way as ministerial responses to answers occur, for which the clock is stopped. I ask that because the situation occurred today in which the government was defeated on a motion that the member be no longer heard but the time had expired on the clock. To pre-empt that, others may refer to the fact that a quorum denies a member speaking time, but under standing order 55—which is about the calling of quorums—it is the duty of the government to hold a quorum in the House so as not to deny a member time to speak. So, Mr Speaker, I ask you to explore that. What we are seeing is slow counting reducing the amount of time available to a member to speak on a motion to suspend standing orders.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, the chair is not aware as to whether tellers are counting slowly or whether that reflects on the counting ability of the tellers. Secondly, the point made by the member for Paterson is well made. I suspect that the instance he has highlighted is not the first or the last time that that will occur while standing orders are as they currently are. I commend to him page 513 of House of Representatives Practice, which says:

The period of time allotted for a Member’s speech is calculated from the moment the Member is given the call (unless the call is disputed by a motion under standing order 65(c)) and includes time taken up by interruptions such as divisions …

Under our current rules, what happened this morning was entirely proper. It would be within the competence of the House to change the standing orders if the House were so disposed.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, in relation to unsuccessful motions, I ask you also to explore, where there are procedures denying a member the opportunity to speak to a motion such as one that a member be no longer heard and where the clock had been stopped, whether there are precedents or something is highlighted in House of Representatives Practice that allows the member the right to speak for their allotted time.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am confident that the standing orders have been observed on prior occasions. If I become aware of a situation where that has not occurred I will notify the honourable member privately.

Last Thursday I advised the House that I would check the Hansard record in relation to a term that appeared to have been used by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the honourable member for Griffith. The Hansard record shows that the honourable leader had indeed used an offensive term about the honourable member. The first reference cited words that had been used outside the House by another member. The second reference was in the leader's own words. It is clear from House of Representatives Practice and from Erskine May that members may not circumvent the standing orders concerning offensive words by the device of using quotations or referring to the words of others. I would caution all honourable members about these matters and I would not expect this particular term or practice to be used again.

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

On indulgence—on your statement to the House, Mr Speaker: I hear what you have said and I am grateful for your continued guidance, as always. You have been asked questions and points of order were raised about the unparliamentary phrase that the Leader of the House used, and continues to use, about the Leader of the Opposition during question time and the debate on the suspension today and which he has been asked to withdraw before. With great respect, I ask you to listen very carefully to the Leader of the House in future, because that phrase, quoting another, stands in exactly the same category as those that you referred to in the statement you have just made.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listen to all honourable members very closely and I endeavour to enforce the standing orders impartially to the best of my ability.