Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday I was asked two questions, one relating to the use of Twitter and one relating to reflections on the judiciary, and I said I would look at those two and report to the House today. Yesterday I was asked by the Leader of the House about a tweet posted under the name of the member for McEwen earlier in the day, and the appropriateness of possible reflections on members via social media, particularly from someone occupying the chair.

This is not the first occasion on which the use, or possible 'misuse', of social media by members in the chamber has been raised with the Speaker, although this is the first occasion it has related to a tweet allegedly being sent from a person in the chair.

It is quite improper for occupiers of the chair whilst in the chair to reflect on the contributions of members, whether orally or by the use of social media. I will be instructing occupiers of the chair to refrain from using social media whilst they are in the chair, as they should be concentrating on the business at hand.

With relation to the question of members of the judiciary, the Manager of Opposition Business asked about the remarks of the Prime Minister in relation to the so-called Bolt case prosecuted under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The Manager of Opposition Business asked whether the Prime Minister's remarks amounted to a reflection on members of the judiciary under standing order 89(b). House of Representatives Practice notes:

Both standing orders and the practice of the House place certain constraints upon references in debate to members of the judiciary.

The Prime Minister's remarks, however, focused on whether the matter should have been prosecuted, not about any member of the judiciary, which is the relevant standing order.