John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During question time on 23 June 2009 I undertook to examine the transcript of two incidents in the chamber and come back to the Senate if need be.

The first incident occurred when Senator Macdonald, having been required to withdraw the word ‘dishonest’ in relation to Senator Wong, did so but substituted the term ‘duplicitous’. The latter term was not audible to me because of the noise in the chamber at the time. The word ‘duplicitous’ is simply a synonym for ‘dishonest’ and has not been accepted as parliamentary in the past. I ask senators not to use that term in relation to any other senator or other office holder protected by standing order 193.

In the second incident, Senator Abetz asked me to consider whether a supplementary question put by Senator Carol Brown to Senator Sherry was a hypothetical question. Senator Brown’s question asked the minister whether he was aware of any alternative strategies for addressing current economic conditions and what might have occurred to the Australian economy if the government had not taken its policy approach.

Questions in this form have been regularly accepted in the past. Asking the minister to refer to any alternative policies has become a stock-in-trade of question time. Asking a minister what the effects would be of a government policy not being adopted or changed has also been accepted. It is not hypothetical in the strict sense of the term as it is simply another way of asking a minister what the effects of government policy are. The question was therefore in order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a four-word statement.

Leave granted.

I withdraw the word that was used. But, Mr President, while I am on my feet, can I raise with you a point of order?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Proceed, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, the point of order relates to standing order 193(3), which says—and I precis—that ‘a senator shall not use offensive words against’ any other senator, and ‘all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on’ senators are ‘highly disorderly’. That is the standing order. I now refer you to question time yesterday, when I asked Senator Wong a question in these words:

At that festival Mr Jim Turnour, the member for Leichhardt, said he and Senator McLucas were representing the federal government, and he said that the federal government wanted to ensure the continuing success of the festival so that the Commonwealth could help nurture and protect the culture of Indigenous people. I ask the minister … was Mr Turnour speaking the truth in that he was saying the federal government wanted to nurture the culture through this festival? If he was speaking the truth, why is it that the government did not provide the normal funding for the festival?

To which Senator Wong then replied:

… I will seek advice from Minister Garrett and provide an answer … It is unfortunate that Senator Macdonald chooses to use question time to smear—

to smear—

members of the government who cannot stand up in response to his question …

Mr President, my point of order is that Senator Wong’s imputation that I was smearing a government member by simply asking whether he was telling the truth in indicating that the government wanted to help nurture Indigenous culture, when clearly the government was not because they had stopped funding, is, I suggest to you, an imputation on my integrity. I was not trying to smear Mr Turnour. I was simply asking the rhetorical question ‘Was he telling the truth in saying that the government wanted to do this, and if he was’—so I ask you, Mr President, to rule that Senator Wong’s imputation against me is, in accordance with standing order 193, highly disorderly.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I would like to make a couple of points on the point of order. First of all, I would suggest to you respectfully that it is not a point of order that Senator Macdonald has taken. He may believe that he has reason to perhaps seek leave because he has been misrepresented and make a statement, but using the guise—using the device, if you like—of a point of order to make that statement I believe is inappropriate. Also, I would make the point, which I think is valid, that any such point of order, or alleged point of order, should be taken at the time—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, rubbish.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not ‘rubbish’ at all, Senator. In fact, it is perfectly appropriate to take a point of order if you believe the standing orders have been breached at any particular time. To come in a day later—after you have made a ruling, Mr President—I believe is inappropriate. But I would also say, in relation to the specific matter raised in the point of order, that what Senator Macdonald is complaining about, through the device of a point of order, is nothing other than the sort of argy-bargy that occurs all the time during debate in this place, and no-one—none of us—should be too sensitive about it. I heard what Senator Macdonald said, in relation to the matter that you have made a statement on this morning, Mr President: he repeated the word ‘dishonest’ in withdrawing, and then I heard him replace that with the word ‘duplicitous’. I did not take a point of order. No-one on this side—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m sorry—Senator Carr did.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m sorry, Senator Macdonald—no-one after the President had made a ruling—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr took a point of order.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! This is now debating. If there is a point of order, what is the point of order?

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am arguing strenuously, Mr President, that there is no point of order, and to use the device of a point of order, literally the best part of 20 hours after the alleged offence took place, is Senator Macdonald simply being far too sensitive about matters that are the sorts of matters that are subject to robust debate in this place every single day the Senate sits. And none of us—not you, Senator Macdonald, nor I, nor anybody else—should be so sensitive.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: the sensitivity rests with the Labor Party. The Labor Party were the ones catcalling when Senator Macdonald made his remarks upon which you have now ruled. I would ask you to ignore the interjection from Senator Faulkner and, in due course, make a ruling on the matter which Senator Macdonald has quite properly raised with you.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will review the full Hansard and I will get back to the chamber with a considered statement. I think that is the best way.