Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to make a statement to the Senate about matters raised in points of order by Senator Wong yesterday. Before I do, can I ask senators to really reflect upon the behaviour in the chamber today. I want all senators to go away, reflect over the next few weeks and consider their behaviour. I know that tensions rise and some questions provoke more emotion than others, but please keep a check on the language used, the interjections and the emotion. I just ask all senators to reflect during the break.

In relation to the matters raised yesterday during question time by Senator Wong, I undertook to review two matters. The first involved the quotation by the Minister for Employment of derogatory language in an answer to a question about the building and construction industry.

On 29 February last year I made a statement about the quotation of such language. I indicated, first, that quoting something does not provide a shield for inappropriate language, secondly that I was concerned about the language being used but, thirdly, that I was also concerned about the rights of senators to express what they want to express in their answers.

I draw senators' attention in particular to the following part of that statement, which in my view also applies to the language quoted by the Minister yesterday:

Had the quotes been in relation to a protected person, there is no question that they would have been completely out of order and required to be withdrawn. Had the offensive words been scattered through a debate, it is highly likely that any chair in this place would have queried them as inappropriate … and where the language used is strictly necessary to make the point,—

where there is no protected person—

it makes it very difficult for the chair to prevent a senator from quoting such language or to require its withdrawal. If senators choose to enter this territory, they do so at their own responsibility—

and their own risk—

…   …   …

In exercising their judgement on whether to quote in full from sources containing offensive material, I would encourage senators to be mindful of the wider audience that views or listens to proceedings, including the frequent presence of young students in the public galleries.

I also draw senators' attention to privilege resolution 9, which reminds senators of their responsibilities when they exercise the great privilege of freedom of speech in this place.

On the second matter, Senator Wong asked that I consider whether the primary question asked by Senator Leyonhjelm of the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, yesterday should have been ruled out of order, on the basis that it was directed toward opposition, rather than government, policies. Under standing order 72(1), questions may be directed to ministers relating to public affairs. The standing order is supplemented by numerous rulings, including rulings about 'alternative policies'. Summarising these rulings, Odgers' Australian Senate Practice says:

A question which invites a minister to comment on the policies or actions of non-government parties is out of order unless the question seeks an expression of the government's intentions in some matter of ministerial responsibility.

As Senator Wong pointed out yesterday, you will find that on page 627 to 628 of the current edition of Odgers. The question was directed solely to opposition policies and should have been ruled out of order on that basis. Senator Cormann was correct in saying that:

… questions can be directed to ministers about public statements that they have made.

However, Senator Leyonhjelm's primary question was not directed to such statements.

Senator Wong also mentioned in passing that I have extended further latitude than previous presidents on 'alternative policy'. I would point out that examples of this can be found under my predecessor. However, I do agree with Senator Wong that a type of 'alternative policy creep' has occurred over a number of years. Therefore, I will be cognisant of this and invite all Senators to be mindful of this in their questions. So unless the question seeks an expression of the government's intentions in some matter of ministerial responsibility it will be ruled out of order. Whilst it cannot certainly have any impact upon the question asked yesterday, I will in future rule such questions out of order.