Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies for not indicating earlier that I was going to ask an administrative question of you. I was caught by surprise by the Prime Minister calling the end of question time, but I do want to raise the point of how long a warning now stands for. In terms of Practice and standing orders, there is nothing that defines, to the best of my knowledge, how long a warning stands for. Previous speakers had determined a warning stands for the day. Now we are finding it is not only standing for the week but overriding from the previous week. I would seek, for the benefit of the House, a clarification of how long a warning lasts for.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not make a long statement on the matter now. If I feel the need to make a longer statement, I will do it at a later time. What I am endeavouring to do with members on all sides is give fair warning before they are ejected under 94(a). I am, I think, within my rights giving fair warning to persistent interjectors, of which there are a number who continue to interject. The alternative would be to simply not give them that additional warning. That is the approach I have sought to take. It has not meant that I am not ejecting people under 94(a), but I think the member for Chisholm would agree that those who are ejected have absolutely no surprise nor do other members of the House about it.

I will make a further statement if I feel the need. Of course, practice evolves and, as the member for Chisholm knows, speakers handle practice or rulings in different ways and have different approaches. I am seeking to bring my approach, after some consideration to this issue. I will certainly deal with members who are behaving in a disorderly way, but I do not want any member to think if they are persistently interjecting they are not going to get my attention.