Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like some clarification in relation to events that occurred just now and during question time in terms of procedure when it comes to indulgence. The observation was that, in response to a question from the member for Mackellar, the Prime Minister exceeded the allocated three minutes of time for answer and proceeded to continue. I was not aware that any indulgence was sought at that time to continue beyond the allocated period of time. The concern that I have and wish to seek clarification on is, if indulgence is used to essentially criticise or mount an attack on members of this place or the other place and if it is then open on indulgence for the Leader of the Opposition to join in that, that could mean indulgence is now used as a precedent for criticism or attack of members of parliament in circumstances where there is limited opportunity to reply. I don't understand that that's the accepted convention on how indulgence has been exercised to date. I would also like clarification in respect to procedure when personal explanation is sought to be made. My understanding is that a personal explanation is simply to correct a mischaracterisation of a person or member and their position. Again, I'd like some clarification on the way in which that should be used because I'm concerned that was also abused in the situation.

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

I thank the member for Warringah for raising that, and I just want to advise the House and particularly the member for Warringah, who's raised a valid point, of practice on pages 498, 499 and 500 of House of Representatives Practice on the issue of indulgence and how indulgence is granted and given by the Speaker. I won't list all of the reasons and mechanisms of how indulgence is made, but I will quote to the House the following. Indulgence can be granted for:

… the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to make statements in relation to natural or other disasters, in tribute to deceased persons, or to speak on matters of significance.

When the Prime Minister makes a statement by indulgence on an issue—

or during question time, when the Speaker decides to grant indulgence—

the Leader of the Opposition is commonly also granted indulgence to speak on the same matter. On occasion, indulgence may be extended to a series of Members—for example, after a Member has a statement to the House …

That's usually a statement announcing a significant issue, or, as we've had in examples during my term as Speaker, of national significance on major issues or natural disasters.

In the event that the indulgence is granted, the simplest way to understand it is that it's by convention of the House over a long period of time that everyone is agreeing on the same topic. I will reflect on what the member has said with regard to how indulgence is granted.

On the second issue, regarding personal explanations, that has been a long practice to enable someone to correct the record. It's normally done straight after question time when someone has indicated what the Speaker or an individual has said is not correct, perhaps by the use of a newspaper article or another online source, to then correct the record of what was said about the member.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noting your comments that you will consider further the points raised, could I ask for clarification with respect to the listed instances where indulgence can be granted. I am concerned if that is going to extend to an opportunity to mount a criticism or attack on members of parliament in this place or that place, because that does not appear in the listed circumstances where indulgence is traditionally granted, and I think it opens a dangerous precedent.

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

I thank the member for Warringah. The Leader of the Australian Greens on a further point of clarification?

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, on a point of clarification. On that matter, which I understand that you have said you will consider, I want to ask about two matters. Firstly, I'd ask you to consider whether the Leader of the Opposition's speech was actually simply an agreement with what the Prime Minister said or extended to other matters beyond what the Prime Minister had raised.

Secondly, if that is the case, to consider whether it is appropriate in circumstances where speeches turn into wideranging political debates and political attacks, whether there is any requirement—because it is not apparent to me from practice—that indulgence is only ever granted when there is agreement. It is clear that indulgence, as I read the practise, can be granted on significant matters and can be granted to other members. In that instance, I ask you to reflect about whether there is a requirement that you can only speak on indulgence if there is agreement, especially considering the Leader of the Opposition's speech on that.

In a parliament where there is wideranging representation from parties and independents other than the opposition and the government, I'd ask whether it is appropriate for indulgence to be used only for two parties—an opposition and a government—to attack others, and then for those others not to be able to participate in the debate.

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

On that point, in other cases where indulgence has been granted—and that's normally on the death of a member—the indulgence is then referred to the Federation Chamber, so there are other opportunities.

I understand the issues that have been raised by members, I appreciate the sensitive nature of today's question time and I'll reflect on the matter.