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

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 29 March 1979
Page: 0


Mr GOODLUCK (Franklin) -Mr Deputy Speaker-


Mr Les Johnson (HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES) - Mr Deputy Speaker,I raise a point of order.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -Order! The honourable member for Franklin will resume his seat.


Mr Les Johnson (HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES) - On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to indicate whether the honourable member for Chifley was regarded as having raised a point of order. If so, did you rule on it and, if so, what was your ruling?


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -I will say again that the honourable member for Chifley originally received the call to speak on the adjournment. He was ruled out of order because of his remarks. On a point of order he then challenged the Chair's ruling during the time allotted for his adjournment speech. I subsequently ruled that his point of order had no substance.


Mr Armitage - On what grounds?


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -On the grounds that there was a contravention of Standing Order 75.


Mr Jacobi - Mr Deputy Speaker,I feel I must raise a point of order tonight as a matter of equity and justice. I remember that only a fortnight ago -


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -What is the honourable member's point of order?


Mr Jacobi - It is simply this: You cannot have one law for honourable members on the other side of the chamber and another for honourable members on this side of the chamber.


Mr Neil -Withdraw that.


Mr Jacobi - I will not withdraw it. Mr Deputy Speaker, a fortnight ago during a taxation debate I spoke about the activities of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.


Mr Baume - Look at the time. You are doing well.


Mr Jacobi - I might be too.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -Order! The honourable member for Hawker will come to his point of order.


Mr Jacobi - The point simply is this: During that debate I was making the point that, prior to being elevated to the bench, the Chief Justice was a leading Queen's Counsel at the Sydney Bar on taxation avoidance. I was asked to withdraw that remark because it was said to be a reflection on the judiciary. I duly observed the ruling of the Chair. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if my submission in the course of that debate was a reflection on the judiciary, why were the remarks made by the honourable member for Phillip not considered a reflection on the judiciary?


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -Order! I think the honourable member has made his point.


Mr Barry Jones (LALOR, VICTORIA) - May I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker?


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -Does the honourable member wish to speak to the point of order?


Mr Barry Jones (LALOR, VICTORIA) - Yes. The point of order raised was that the attack made by the honourable member for Phillip was to the effect that there had been a breach by the -


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -Order! I gave the honourable member for Lalor the call on the basis that he wished to speak on the point of order raised by the honourable member for Hawker.


Mr Barry Jones (LALOR, VICTORIA) - It related immediately to that.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -Order! The honourable member for Lalor will resume his seat. In respect of the point of order raised by the honourable member for Hawker, the Chair has no recollection of the matter to which he referred. The ruling which I have given, in the judgment of the Chair, is consistent with the Standing Orders.


Mr Armitage - On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer you to the rulings given by the Speaker concerning criticisms from this side of the House of the previous Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, and particularly to the ruling that any criticism of the Governor-General had to be by way of a substantive motion, in accordance with what I quoted from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice tonight. I would like to know how your ruling stands up against that. In future, can the Governor-General be attacked without a substantive motion being moved?


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -Order! The Chair has ruled on the matter. It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2. 15 p.m. on Tuesday next.







Suggest corrections