The PRESIDENT (3:01 PM) —I wish to make a statement regarding unparliamentary language and matters raised by Senator Cook. In the debate on the interim report of the Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States on 24 June 2004, Senator Cook, the chairman of the committee, referred to remarks included in the government senators' minority report which he said would be unparliamentary if made during the proceedings of the committee, and asked me to look at the matter.

The section in the minority report to which Senator Cook referred claimed that the chairman's draft report was prepared with no consultation whatever with government senators and the possibility of the committee seeking to come to a consensus view was therefore foreclosed. The minority report claimed that the circulation of the chairman's draft was `obviously calculated to prevent careful analysis or criticism' and that this was `consistent with the evident tactic of the chairman in persistently refusing to give government senators equal opportunity to question witnesses.'

If these statements were made about a senator in the Senate, it is doubtful that I or any other occupant of the chair would rule them to be unparliamentary. Although they cast serious reflections on the conduct of the chair, they would appear to fall into a category of allegations which are commonly made and refuted in debate rather than offensive words under standing order 193.

There is, however, a potential problem with the inclusion of unparliamentary expressions in committee reports. This was the subject of a statement I made on 11 November 2002. It is the responsibility of members of committees and, to the extent that they can influence committee deliberations, committee staff to ensure that unparliamentary language is not included in reports. Other than repeat this injunction, there would appear to be little that I can do to avoid the problem. Once a report is presented the offending words cannot effectively be withdrawn, but the Senate could censure them.