Save Search
    Prev   Next   Return to results listPrint ListEmail Document Link

Title

Ch14 Control and conduct of debate / RULES GOVERNING CONTENT OF SPEECHES / References to and reflections on Members

Database

House Practice

Date

01-05-2005

Source

House of Reps

Parl No.

41

Chapter

Control and conduct of debate

Chapter No.

Chapter 14

Page

500

Section No.

 

System Id

procedural/practcer/chapter14.29.doc


Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Ch14 Control and conduct of debate / RULES GOVERNING CONTENT OF SPEECHES / References to and reflections on Members



Download WordDownload Word

House of Representatives                                Ch 14                                                 p 500

 

Control and conduct of debate / RULES GOVERNING CONTENT OF SPEECHES

 

References to and reflections on Members

In the Chamber and the Main Committee Members may not be referred to by name, but by the name of their electoral division, or by the title of their parliamentary or ministerial office. 1 The purpose of this rule is to make debate less personal and avoid the direct confrontation of Members addressing one another as ‘you’. 2 A degree of formality helps the House remain more dignified and tolerant when political views clash and passions may be inflamed. However, it is the practice of the House that, when appointments to committees or organisations are announced by the Speaker or a Minister, the name of a Member is used.

Offensive words may not be used against any Member 3 and all imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members are considered to be highly disorderly. 4 The practice of the House, based on that of the House of Commons, 5 is that Members can only direct a charge against other Members or reflect upon their character or conduct upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. 6 Although a charge or reflection upon the character or conduct of a Member may be made by substantive motion, in expressing that charge or reflection a Member may not use unparliamentary words. 7 This practice does not necessarily preclude the House from discussing the activities of any of its Members. 8 It is not in order to use offensive words against, make imputations against, or reflect on another Member by means of a quotation or by putting words in someone else’s mouth.

In judging offensive words the following explanation given by Senator Wood as Acting Deputy President of the Senate in 1955 is a useful guide:

. . . in my interpretation of standing order 418 [similar to House of Representatives standing order 90 in relation to Members], offensive words must be offensive in the true meaning of that word. When a man is in political life it is not offensive that things are said about him politically. Offensive means offensive in some personal way. The same view applies to the meaning of ‘‘improper motives’’ and “personal reflections’’ as used in the standing order. Here again, when a man is in public life and a member of this Parliament, he takes upon himself the risk of being criticised in a political way. 9

It has also been regarded as disorderly to refer to the lack of sobriety of a Member, 10 to imitate the voice or manner of a Member 11 and to make certain remarks in regard to a Member’s stature 12 or physical attributes. 13 Although former Members are not protected by the standing orders, 14 the Chair has required a statement relating to a former Member to be withdrawn 15 and on another occasion has regarded it as most unfair to import into debate certain actions of a Member then deceased. 16

May classifies examples of expressions which are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference as:

  • the imputation of false or unavowed motives;

  • the misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation;

  • charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood; and

  • abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder. 17

    • Australian Speakers have followed a similar approach. An accusation that a Member has lied or deliberately misled is clearly an imputation of an improper motive. Such words are ruled out of order and Members making them ordered to withdraw their remarks. The deliberate misleading of the House is a serious matter which could be dealt with as a contempt, and a charge that a Member has done so should only be made by way of a substantive motion. 18

    In accordance with House of Commons practice, for many years it was ruled that remarks which would be held to be offensive, and so required to be withdrawn, when applied to an identifiable Member, did not have to be withdrawn when applied to a group where individual Members could not be identified. This rule was upheld by distinct votes of the House. 19 This did not mean, however, that there were no limits to remarks which could be made reflecting on unidentified Members. For example, a statement that it would be unwise to entrust certain unnamed Members with classified information was required to be withdrawn, 20 and Speaker Aston stated that exception would be taken to certain charges, the more obvious of which were those of sedition, treason, corruption or deliberate dishonesty. 21 Speaker Snedden supported this practice when he required the withdrawal of the term ‘a bunch of traitors’ 22 and later extended it:

    The consequence is that I have ruled that even though such a remark may not be about any specified person the nature of the language [the Government telling lies] is unparliamentary and should not be used at all. 23

    In the past there has been a ruling that it was not unparliamentary to make an accusation against a group as distinct from an individual. That is not a ruling which I will continue. I think that if an accusation is made against members of the House which, if made against any one of them, would be unparliamentary and offensive, it is in the interests of the comity of this House that it should not be made against all as it could not be made against one. Otherwise, it may become necessary for every member of the group against whom the words are alleged to stand up and personally withdraw himself or herself from the accusation . . . I ask all honourable members to cease using unparliamentary expressions against a group or all members which would be unparliamentary if used against an individual. 24

    This practice has been followed by succeeding Speakers.

    The use of offensive gestures has been deprecated by the Speaker. It would be open to the Speaker to direct a Member to leave the Chamber or to name a Member for such behaviour. 25



    S.O. 64 and see Ch. on ‘Members’.



    And see May , 23rd edn, p. 439.



    S.O. 89.



    S.O. 90.



    May , 23rd edn, p. 387.



    H.R. Deb. (16.10.57) 1416; H.R. Deb. (2.3.72) 478. See also S.O. 100(c).



    H.R. Deb. (25.6.96) 2641, 2654-5.



    H.R. Deb. (25.10.50) 1395.



    S. Deb. (2.6.55) 629; Odgers , 6th edn, p. 213.



    H.R. Deb. (2.11.77) 2736.



    H.R. Deb. (25.9.08) 403. On another occasion a Member apologised after having imitated another Member’s accent, although the Chair had not intervened. H.R. Deb. (11.10.85) 1907, 1929.



    H.R. Deb. (9.9.04) 4508.



    H.R. Deb. (28.8.79) 669.



    H.R. Deb. (5.11.87) 2093.



    H.R. Deb. (1.4.30) 724-5.



    H.R. Deb. (26.5.55) 1204.



    May , 23rd edn, pp. 440-1.



    H.R. Deb (19.6.2003) 17045-6.



    VP 1968-69/413, 499; VP 1970-72/43-5.



    H.R. Deb. (4.5.67) 1793-7.



    PP 153 (1970) 43-8.



    H.R. Deb. (27.2.80) 431.



    H.R. Deb. (10.9.80) 1076.



    H.R. Deb. (12.3.81) 709.



    H.R. Deb. (20.6.2002) 4076, 4080-1.