21
August 2018
Statement by the President
Parliamentary Language
The PRESIDENT
(10:01): On Thursday, 28 June an exchange between two senators occurred in the
chamber and became the subject of substantial public debate and commentary. I
believe it is appropriate to address this now, as the Senate resumes for its
current session. The facts are these. An exchange occurred between Senators
Hanson-Young and Leyonhjelm. I did not hear any of the comments made, nor were
they drawn to the attention of the chamber at the time. Technically they did
not form part of the Senate proceedings. The issue was raised with me later
that day by Senator Di Natale, and I pursued a resolution to the matter
privately. It was then subsequently brought to the attention of the chamber. No
specific action was sought from the chair at that time, and it is now a matter
of public record.
In my view,
had the exchange occurred as reported as part of the proceedings of the Senate,
there is no doubt that the chair would have required certain comments to be
withdrawn. I have no authority as President to force an apology or apply a
sanction to any senator. Such actions are matters for the Senate. Since these
events, I have considered the application of standing orders and custom and practice
to events that occur in the chamber but that do not form part of formal
proceedings. The relevant standing orders regarding the conduct of senators
are, firstly, No. 193(3), Rules of debate:
A senator shall not use offensive words against either House of
Parliament ... or any member of such House ... and all imputations of improper
motives and all personal reflections ... shall be considered highly disorderly.
This provision
specifically applies to the formal proceedings, to debate in this chamber.
However, standing order 203 is broader and is entitled 'Infringement of order'.
Specifically, part (1) of that outlines:
If a senator:
(b) is guilty of disorderly conduct;
(c) uses objectionable words, and refuses to withdraw such words;
the President may report to the Senate that the senator has
committed an offence.
Standing order
197 provides that a senator may at any time raise a point of order 'arising in
the proceedings then before the Senate', meaning it must be raised at the time
of the incident. It has been the practice in this chamber to allow senators to
raise a point of order about language used in exchanges that is not recorded in
Hansard as part of the formal proceedings of the Senate. When outside the
hearing of the chair, this has been followed by a request to withdraw
inappropriate language if the language was used. Importantly, the practice of
allowing this to be addressed immediately ensures those present are in the
chamber when the matter is addressed. If a statement is not recorded in Hansard
and was outside the hearing of the chair, the chair and chamber are reliant
upon the honesty of senators involved, with the understanding that it is always
possible for statements to be misheard or misattributed.
Therefore, in
my view, it is the established practice of this chamber that the standing
orders do not apply simply or strictly to formal proceedings or records in the
chamber but to other interactions as well. Any senator, not just those subject
to them or involved in any exchange, has the capacity to draw comments to the
attention of the chair and the chamber. I intend to write to the Deputy
President, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, and ask the committee to give
consideration to handling matters that occur in the chamber but that are not
part of the formal proceedings and are not raised in the Senate at that time.
More
generally, I ask senators to consider the following. This chamber is the prime
deliberative chamber of the parliament. It is far better that positive
attention is attracted by our words and contributions to debate. On several
occasions in recent times, this has not been the case. The standing orders and
rules of this place are limits, not guides. Just because something can be said
or done does not mean it should be. Common decency cannot be codified. It
depends on all of us considering the impact of our behaviour on others. While
this workplace isn't like a normal one, it is still a place where we all must
work together, even across issues of profound disagreement.
We also work
with officials and staff, and we should consider the impact of our behaviour on
them. This is rightly a place of vigorous debate, but personal abuse has no
place in this chamber, particularly if it targets personal attributes, such as
race or gender—nor does the use of abusive epithets or labels. The use of such
language does nothing to facilitate the operation of a chamber and free debate
within it, and we are all capable of vigorously arguing our case without resort
to it. I intend to take a strict line on the use of such language, to uphold
the dignity of the chamber and to ensure it is a place where all senators
representing the people of their states and territories are able to freely
contribute to debate and deliberations.
Finally, it is
sometimes said that parliament is at its best when dealing with issues of conscience
and all senators speak freely and personally on such issues. Throughout this
week we will have the opportunity to again demonstrate that.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents