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
Monday, 11 November 2002
Page: 5881


Senator BRANDIS (3:15 PM) —by leave—I want to make this point: the ruling of Acting Deputy President Lightfoot was a ruling that no unparliamentary language had been used. The basis of that ruling, as the Acting Deputy President explained, was that the words objected to, which, as I recall, were words to the effect that `the report of the majority is corrupted by intellectual dishonesty,' were in reference to a document rather than to a senator or senators corporately and therefore standing order 193(3) did not apply. You have upheld that ruling, Mr President, as I understood your statement earlier this afternoon. There was no circumvention of the standing orders by the government senators because there was no unparliamentary language used within the meaning of standing order 193(3), which Senator Cook ought to know attaches only to references to senators individually or corporately. The ruling of the Acting Deputy President was that it did not.


The PRESIDENT —My understanding is that no unparliamentary language was used in the debate. What was used in the report is another matter.