Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 18 August 2005
Page: 87


Mr ANDREN (3:18 PM) —Mr Speaker, mate, do you intend to make a statement about the correctness of the eviction of the member for New England from the chamber yesterday and why he was asked to withdraw the word ‘bribe’ when there are several hundred recorded and unwithdrawn instances of its use in this place, including by the Deputy Speaker at the time, the member for Page?


The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Calare for his question. The member for New England was named and suspended for refusing to withdraw a comment when asked to do so by the chair. Hansard records the comment as having been an allegation of bribery applied collectively to members of a political party. I confirm that the practice of the House, as outlined on page 502 of House of Representatives Practice, is that an accusation made against an identifiable group of members of the House will be regarded as unparliamentary and offensive, as if it were made about an individual member, and that it should be withdrawn on the chair’s request.

In practice, the requirement for withdrawal of a reflection on a group of members depends on the severity of the reflection. In the first instance, depending on the context, reflections must be personally offensive. Many remarks that offend political sensitivities would normally not require withdrawal. Comments in the House that a group of members are traitors, racists or corrupt are more serious. I draw the attention of members to the following guideline quoted in House of Representatives Practice:

Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate.

Where a member refuses to carry out an instruction from the chair, such as to withdraw a certain expression, the offence is compounded so as to constitute defiance of the chair. It is in the interests of our parliamentary institution that members obey the directives of the chair. Refusal to do so warrants stern intervention. I conclude, in answering the member for Calare, by requesting all members to observe the highly desirable characteristics of moderation and good temper in their language and in their general behaviour in the House.