Sue Lines (President) Share this | Hansard source

I was asked to review the tape in relation to a matter that occurred on Tuesday.

I have been asked to review the Hansard of a series of exchanges during a speech by Senator Thorpe on the Safeguard Mechanism's (Crediting) Amendment Bill on 28 March 2023. In effect, the chair had conflicting points of order before her but was unable to deal with either of them because the chamber descended into disorder. This included Senator Hughes disregarding the chair by persistently interjecting and Senator Thorpe repeating an accusation before the chair had been able to rule on it.

It is unacceptable that senators continue to disregard the authority of the chair while points of order are raised and determined. This is happening far too often. The Deputy President and I will be looking to all senators in this place, and particularly senators in leadership positions, to assist in reversing this trend.

Consistent with this, I intend to take a firmer line in calling the chamber to order, particularly in question time. In order to preserve the dignity of the chamber, I remind all senators of the behaviour codes and your endorsement of these codes in this chamber and the other place.

It was appropriate in the circumstances for the chair to refer the matter to me for review. At the outset, I would like to praise the way Senator Reynolds managed the disorder in the chamber. She did so in a dignified and calm way that sought to take the heat out of the situation when she was regrettably placed in a very difficult position. The Hansard records Senator Hughes commenting about Senator Thorpe acknowledging the traditional owners and custodians of the land she was discussing. In response, Senator Thorpe asked the chair:

Is that racism? Can I just call out racism in this chamber right now, please?

Senator Hughes, on a point of order, said:

We've just had an accusation made in this chamber, and I would like Senator Thorpe to withdraw.

The matter involves the interpretation of standing order 193. Standing order 193(3) prohibits offensive words, imputations of improper motives and personal reflections against senators and members. It revolves around the idea that there should be constraints on language directed to other senators or members. This is intended to ensure that political debate is conducted in the privileged forum of parliament without personally offensive language. This raises the question of what constitutes personally offensive language. Odgers' says:

It is for the chair to determine what constitutes offensive words, imputations of improper motives and personal reflections under this standing order. In doing so, the chair has regard to the connotations of expressions and the context in which they are used.

In other words, the rule isn't necessarily about particular words or expressions; it's about the use of such words in context. It is for the chair to determine whether, in all circumstances, the language amounts to offensive words, imputations of improper motives or personal reflections directed to a senator.

I now turn to Tuesday. First, a statement directed to a senator, accusing them of being racist, breaches standing order 193(3). Any such personal reflection upon another senator or a member of the House is highly disorderly and, if made, should be withdrawn. I am not sure that a senator asking, 'Is this racism?' in response to an interjection necessarily breaches that standing order. It would depend on the circumstances. However, Senator Thorpe subsequently made a direct personal reflection upon Senator Hughes, which should be withdrawn. Senator Thorpe asked the chair to consider whether the particular language used was racist. As the chair indicated, it is not generally the role of a chair to judge the character of language used by senators unless it breaches some rule of the Senate. In discussing standing order 193(3), Odgers' says:

The chair normally does not require the withdrawal of words unless the chair has determined that they are contrary to the standing order, but if a senator finds a remark personally offensive and considers himself or herself personally aggrieved, the chair may require its withdrawal to preserve the dignity of debate.

In making these judgements, it is relevant for chairs to consider whether words may be particularly offensive to another senator because of their personal attributes or experience. However, it is incumbent on every senator to demonstrate a level of respect for their colleagues, which ensures that chairs are not required to adjudicate such matters.

In relation to the interjection from Senator Hughes, the Hansard records what appears to be a derogatory comment about the practice of acknowledging country, at the same time as Senator Thorpe was acknowledging the custodians of a particular land. As Senator Thorpe clearly found that to be personally offensive, I consider there would have been grounds for the chair to seek to have Senator Hughes clarify or withdraw her remarks. However, because of the subsequent disorder, that was not possible. In those circumstances, I think it would be appropriate for Senator Hughes to either withdraw or clarify her remarks. For absolute clarity, I am asking that Senator Thorpe withdraw her comments to Senator Hughes and for Senator Hughes to either withdraw her comments to Senator Thorpe or clarify those comments.

Finally, I endorse the comments of former president Ryan, who said:

The standing orders and rules of this place are limits, not guides. Just because something can be said or done does not mean it should be. Common decency cannot be codified. It depends on all of us considering the impact of our behaviour on others. While this workplace isn't like a normal one, it is still a place where we all must work together, even across issues of profound disagreement.

Thank you, senators.