Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, yesterday in question time, the Attorney-General made statements which contained insulting language and imputed false motives to the Leader of the Opposition and made a personal reflection on the Leader of the Opposition. House of Representatives Practice tells us that there are instances where a Speaker has later drawn attention to remarks made by a member and called on a member to apologise and withdraw. In view of the seriousness of what has occurred here, I submit that this is an occasion, Mr Speaker, where it would be appropriate for you to take a similar course of conduct.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the same issue, Mr Speaker, when you're taking that into account, I ask that you also reflect on the principle of something being raised at the time. I respect what the Manager of Opposition Business has just referenced in Practice. But that, of course, is usually utilised when something is said where the member who might feel aggrieved was not in the room. We're talking about something where all 151 of us were here—except for whoever was sick, but basically every member of parliament was here. Secondly, I ask that you take into account where lines have previously been drawn. Tough things are said in this chamber.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The manager was heard in silence. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. It's a serious issue. Order, the member for Barker!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give examples of things that have been said. For example, a claim that, when a woman is personally abused by a bikie, it is being sanctioned by the Prime Minister, is a claim that was made by the Leader of the Opposition on 27 July last year in the House. It was not true. It was not sought to be withdrawn. It was accepted within the realms of parliamentary debate. Similarly, it was claimed, when we were in opposition, that we were backing paedophiles over Australian kids.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You tried to stop the deportation laws.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And he's now defending it. He's now defending it.

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members on my right and my left, this is incredibly serious. That's why I want to hear from the Leader of the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point that I'm asking you to take into account is that there has been, for a long time, a gap between things being said that members will find unacceptable and things being said which have been allowed to be said within the parliament and have not been viewed as unparliamentary. If there is anyone who has examples of that, it is in fact the Leader of the Opposition himself.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a very simple test. We've just heard the words from the leader himself, saying that, if it goes to what members widely regard as unacceptable and unparliamentary—and those comments yesterday went beyond any reasonable standard—action is required.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I want silence in the House. Member for Bowman, what point of order are you rising on?

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on the fact that yesterday the Leader of the House actually said—his words—that, when it was directed to a group of people, we would all be back here. He just said that the claim about paedophiles accused everyone in the House—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Longman can resume his seat. I've carefully reflected on the Hansard record of the response by the Attorney-General—in particular, those aspects which referenced the Leader of the Opposition. The Attorney-General's statements on this went largely to what was not said or done. While the statements might be regarded as critical of the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition, the language used was not unparliamentary. It did not contain offensive words or make personal reflections. I appreciate that the subject of the question itself—protests which involve public displays of Nazi symbolism—is highly sensitive and emotive in nature. In such circumstances, I understand that offence might be felt more readily than in relation to less sensitive subjects. I note that no request for withdrawal was made at the time that the answer was given, which is the expectation of the House where a withdrawal is sought. Nevertheless, it was for this reason that I granted indulgence to the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement in relation to the same question after the Attorney-General had completed his answer. I considered that this opportunity, together with the further personal explanation by the Leader of the Opposition after question time, afforded him sufficient opportunity to respond to the issues raised.

I will address the issue that the Manager of Opposition Business raised about, in particular, page 515 of the House of Representatives Practice, where it says that a Speaker has, at a later time, called on a member to apologise for remarks made earlier and to withdraw them. In relation to the two referenced occasions in 1955, the remarks were, in one case, not heard by the Speaker but recorded in Hansard, and, in the other case, made during a division. The circumstances involved, whereby the Speaker took action at a later time, were therefore quite different to the situation that arose yesterday.