Mr BEAZLEY (Leader of the Opposition)(4.35 p.m.) —Mr Speaker, on indulgence: during the debate, on several occasions you obliged me to withdraw remarks that you considered unparliamentary. The two sets of remarks that you obliged me to withdraw were when on one occasion I used the expression `deliberately misleading' and when on another occasion I used the expression `lie'. The point I made to you very briefly was that, in a censure motion, both terms have been found to be parliamentary in the past.

I now cite for your consideration—you can go away and think about this—a motion moved by the now Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the then Leader of the Opposition, in the course of a debate in the middle of last year. I could draw attention to many others. The motion says:

That this House condemns the Prime Minister for deliberately misleading the House . . .

The term `deliberately misleading' was used then and, I might say, was repeated throughout. At one stage of the remarks—and he was not obliged to withdraw them—Mr Howard said:

That was not a vague statement; it was not an expression of opinion; it was not an exaggeration; it was, in our view, a straight-out lie. I repeat that: it was a straight-out lie, lie, lie by the Prime Minister.

Throughout the speech given on 5 June 1995 you will see that reflected.

Mr Downer interjecting—

Mr BEAZLEY —Alexander, in this place we also run a parliament. The standards and the issues of parliament—

Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is on indulgence. You will not debate the issue.

Mr BEAZLEY —are the sorts of concerns that apply here. I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, that those expressions—both of which I used—have been used frequently in my time in the House. And while in absolutely every other set of circumstances they have been obliged to be withdrawn—indeed, from time to time I can recollect you yourself advising us on the deliberately misleading one, not the lie one, that if we wish to add the word `deliberately' to the word `misleading' then we are obliged to move a motion in order to be able to do that—there is ample precedent that there are circumstances in one type of debate only, and that is a censure debate, when both those expressions are permitted.

Given that that is the past practice, and given that it has been a practice fully utilised by this government when in opposition, I would urge you to reconsider your rulings at leisure and give us further guidance.