|Related Orders, Precedents and Rulings|
|2013 Precedent||1. During Question Time a member withdrew the comment "Sit down, you goose."
PD 27/3/2013, 19531|
|2012 Cons. Ruling||Speaker Hancock: "During recent sittings I have become increasingly concerned about the practice that has developed of members not being inclined, upon request from the Chair, to withdraw offensive words, imputations or personal reflections upon another member. The use of offensive words against another member is a breach of order and is prohibited under Standing Order 72. Similarly, Standing Order 73 specifies that imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on members are disorderly other than by substantive motion. These standing orders come into play if a member takes a point of order that the words used, or imputations or reflections made, are objectionable to the member and should be withdrawn. The Chair may intervene and take action if offensive or disorderly words are used by a member. The Chair would not usually intervene unless the words used are particularly distasteful and have been clearly heard by the Chair. The Chair also has an overriding duty to preserve the dignity of the House and, in that regard, would not usually contemplate withdrawal where the objection raised is frivolous or the result of a misunderstanding. In view of the confusion that has occurred over the interpretation of those standing orders, I can provide the following advice to the House by way of clarification. If objection is taken against words used, or imputations or reflections made, on the ground that the member finds them personally offensive, the Chair will ascertain what words were spoken. If the Chair finds the words used were capable of giving offence, the member will be ordered to withdraw them and, if it is a particularly serious case, the Chair has discretion to direct that an apology be given. An apology is not sought purely at the request of the member taking offence. If the member refuses to withdraw or only offers a qualified withdrawal, the Chair has discretion to name the member under Standing Order 250 (3) or remove the member from the House under Sessional Order 249A."
PD 14/8/2012, 13669|
|2012 Precedent||1. Member withdrew the comment "...including the bonehead from Dubbo". PD 15/02/2012, 8331 2. Member withdrew the reference to another member as a "Pinochet fascist". PD 23/2/2012, 8850-1 3. Point of order raised that the Deputy Premier should apologise and withdraw the comment that "the member for Canterbury is becoming shrill". The Speaker advised that it is the Deputy Premier's decision as to whether he withdraws the comment and apologises. PD 7/3/2012, 9154 4. Minister asked for a comment inferring that he was a liar to be withdrawn as it was unparliamentary. The Speaker acknowledged that previous Speakers have ruled that calling another member a liar is unparliamentary but did not order the comment to be withdrawn. PD 15/3/2012, 9759 5. The Speaker ordered the Deputy Premier to refrain from making personal remarks having made the remark "...at least the baby has hair". PD 28/3/2012, 10057 6. Member asked to withdraw the comment "...the member for Tamworth is the principal owner of Centreboard Media..." The member did not withdraw the comment noting that the information was obtained from the pecuniary interest register. PD 3/4/2012, 10512 7. Member withdrew comment "...a lobbying business has been run out of his [the Minister for Resources and Energy] office."
PD 22/5/2012, 11686 8. Member withdrew comment "The Premier has lied...". PD 31/5/2012, 12438 9. Member withdrew the comment "...Barry O'Fibber...". PD 31/5/2012, 13556 10. The Speaker made a considered ruling: During recent sittings I have become increasingly concerned about the practice that has developed of members not being inclined, upon request from the Chair, to withdraw offensive words, imputations or personal reflections upon another member. The use of offensive words against another member is a breach of order and is prohibited under Standing Order 72. Similarly, Standing Order 73 specifies that imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on members are disorderly other than by substantive motion. These standing orders come into |
|2011 Precedent||1. During debate on a bill a member took a point of order in response to an allegation made about a former member and requested that the comment be withdrawn. The member speaking withdrew the comment accordingly. PD 4/5/2011, 115 2. During a Minister's response the Speaker upheld a point of order that allegations must be made by way of a substantive motion and asked the Minister to withdraw the remark that a member was "racist". The Minister withdrew the comment. PD 21/06/2011, 2989 3. During the consideration of motions to be accorded priority the Leader of the House asked the Speaker to direct the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the comment "...The Premier, like a modern-day Mussolini,..." The Speaker noted she could not make the Leader of the Opposition withdraw the comment when he refused to do so. PD 9/8/2011, 3995-6 4. Member withdrew comment "...I concede that a North Coast National Party member of Parliament is an expert witness when it comes to speaking on corruption."
PD 24/8/2011, 4599 5. During the Premier's response to an answer the Leader of the Opposition requested the Premier to withdraw the comment "...The Leader of the Opposition...supports the unions walking off the job so that public servants can obtain wage rises without productivity improvements. The Premier refused to withdraw the comment. PD 26/8/2011, 4884 6. Member withdrew "...This shows a complete lack of honesty and integrity from the Premier, and it shows that he is a politician that cannot be trusted."
PD 8/9/2011, 5267 7. Member withdrew reference of a member as a "bush tucker man". PD 17/10/2011, 6412 8. Member withdrew the comment "...I know the member for Maroubra has been at Tuscany..."
PD 25/11/2011, 8000|
|2010 Precedent||1. Following a point of order during debate on a motion accorded priority a member withdrew a statement that a member's "...challenges to Premiers to do a better job delivering services to New South Wales have been leaked-probably by him...". PD 24/2/2010, 20863 2. Following a point of order that a member's statement that "Labor members are suggesting that if you are a Christian in New South Wales you are a racist and deplorable person" be withdrawn, the Acting Speaker advised that the Chair cannot order a member to withdraw a remark. PD 24/2/2010, 20864 3. A point of order was taken that a statement that the motion before the House constituted "...an attack on a particular member of Parliament for his particular religious views" was unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. The Acting Speaker advised that the Chair cannot order a member to withdraw a remark. PD 24/2/2010, 20868 4. During debate on a general business motion a member took a point of order that the member speaking had made a slur towards members of the Opposition and asked that the offending comment be withdrawn. The Assistant Speaker asked the member speaking to consider either withdrawing the comment or restating it, both of which he declined to do. PD 25/2/2010, 20961 5. During Question Time a Minister made reference to Opposition members as being "...police bashers on the other side of the House" whilst providing an answer. A member took a point of order that it was unparliamentary to accuse any member of not supporting the police and requested that the Minister withdraw the comment. The Minister refused to withdraw the comment and a second point of order was taken that the Minister's comment was highly offensive to all members of the House. The Minister was again asked to withdraw the comment and the Speaker intervened, advising the member that he had put the withdrawal request to the Minister and the Minister had chosen not to take that course of action. The Speaker then advised the House that if any member had taken offence to the comment th|
|2009 Precedent||1. During Question Time a point of order was taken that a member had referred to a Minister as acting corruptly. The Speaker asked the member to withdraw the comment, which he did accordingly. PD 4/3/2009, 12942 2. During Question Time a point of order was taken that the Premier had referred to members of the Opposition as seeking "...to denigrate the work ethic of the 100,000 people who work in the New South Wales [health] system". The Speaker asked the Premier if he would like to withdraw the comment, which he did accordingly. PD 5/3/2009, 13078 3. During debate on a motion accorded priority a member withdrew a reference to another member's "...stupidity..." immediately following a point of order. PD 12/3/2009, 13448 4. During debate on consideration of motions to be accorded priority the Leader of the Opposition withdrew a reference to the Premier as being "...a serial liar..." following a point of order. PD 24/3/2009, 13622 5. During debate on a motion accorded priority a member withdrew a reference to another member as being a "...fraud..." after repeated directions from the Assistant Speaker to do so. PD 26/3/2009, 13937 6. During debate on a bill a member withdrew a reference to another member allegedly wishing "...to reveal sensitive police intelligence to the bikies...". PD 12/5/2009, 15077-15078 7. During Question Time the Premier withdrew a reference to the Leader of the Opposition as being a "...windbag". PD 14/5/2009, 15359 8. During debate on a general business motion a member withdrew a reference to another member as being "...foolish". PD 4/6/2009, 15814 9. During debate on a general business motion a member withdrew a reference to Government members as being "...incompetent..." and "...corrupt...". PD 4/6/2009, 15816 10. During debate on a general business motion a member withdrew a reference to Opposition members "...[trolling] around as grubs". PD 4/6/2009, 15817 11. During debate on a general business motion a member withdrew a reference to another member as having "...a silver spoon sticking|
|2008 Precedent||1. During debate on a general business motion a member took a point of order that the member speaking referred to a Minister as "the bagman for New South Wales Labor" and asked the Acting Speaker to direct the member to withdraw the comments. The Acting Speaker asked the member speaking if he would like to withdraw the comments, which he did not. A second point of order was taken and the Acting Speaker was again asked to direct the member speaking to withdraw the offending comments. The Acting Speaker stated that under standing orders the occupant of the Chair was not able to compel members to withdraw comments. PD 28/2/2008, 5665 2. During Question Time the Leader of the Opposition took a point of order that a Minister had inferred that Opposition members "will always attack the New South Wales Police Force" and asked that the comments be withdrawn. The Minister withdrew the comments accordingly. PD 28/2/2008, 5685 3. During debate on a bill the Acting Speaker directed a member to refrain from referring to the Mayor of Baulkham Hills as "Queen Sonya". PD 5/3/2008, 5894-5895 4. During Question Time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition took a point of order that she regarded a Minister's remarks as a substantial attack on her and asked that the Minister move a substantive motion if she was to make such allegations. The Speaker stated that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was entitled to ask the Minister to withdraw the comments, which the Minister declined to do. The Speaker then reminded the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that there were other forms of the House to pursue the matter. PD 6/3/2008, 6057 5. During Question Time the Leader of the Opposition took a point of order that the Deputy Premier had inferred that a member had "tried to bash a few branch members" and stated that the comments must be withdrawn in accordance with the procedures of the House. The Speaker stated that a member may ask for comments to be withdrawn and invited the Deputy Premier to respond to the Leader of the Opposition's request|
|2007 Precedent||1. A point of order was taken that a member had made reference to "the incompetence of the Minister for Police". The Acting Speaker upheld the point of order. PD 6/6/2007, 913 2. During debate on a general business motion a point of order was taken that a member referred to a Minister as "the mendacious Minister for Planning". The Speaker upheld the point of order and directed the member to withdraw the remark. PD 27/6/2007, 1948 3. During Question Time the Leader of the Opposition took a point of order that a Minister referred to a Federal Government Minister as "the Minister for Revlon" and asked her to withdraw the comment. The Minister withdrew the comment accordingly. PD 7/11/2007, 3676 4. The Deputy Speaker directed a member to refrain from speaking in an unparliamentary manner in response to the member's use of the word "boy" when describing another member. PD 8/11/2007, 3794 5. A member took a point of order that another member had referred to her as an "imposter" and asked that the member withdraw the comment. Following debate on the point of order the member withdrew the comment accordingly. PD 8/11/2007, 3828-3829 6. During Question Time a member took a point of order that a Minister had inferred that he had "committed a low act " and "hates police" and asked that the comments be withdrawn. The Minister withdrew the comments accordingly. PD 14/11/2007, 4121 7. During Question Time two points of order were taken that a Minister had referred to Opposition members as "frauds" and both times the Minister was asked to withdraw the statement. On both occasions the Minister declined to withdraw the statement on the grounds that he was responding to interjections from members opposite. PD 14/11/2007, 4125 8. During consideration of motions to be accorded priority a member took a point of order that the Leader of the Opposition referred to Government members as seeming to think that "the death of children in this State is not important" and asked the comment be withdrawn. The Leader of the Opposition withdrew |
|S.O. 81 of 1994 (Repealed)||81. A Member shall not use offensive words against: (1) Either House or its Members. (2) A member of the judiciary. (3) A statute unless moving for its repeal.|
|2006 Precedent||1. During the consideration of urgent motions a point of order was raised that a member had used offensive language by commenting "...the Leader of the Opposition and his Nationals lap-dogs...". The Speaker noted he did not condone the use of such terminology but because the member had not referred to any specific member the general comment was permitted in the House. PD 09/05/2006, p 22776 2. During questions without notice points of order were made against the Deputy Premier for the references he made to the Leader of the Opposition - "Viscount of Vaucluse", "Baron of Bellevue Hill", and "Duke of Double Bay". The Deputy Premier withdrew the references. PD 11/05/2006, pp 23115-6 3. During the second reading debate on a bill a point of order was raised that the member speaking had suggested that a Minister had engaged in corrupt and illegal activity and should withdraw the statement. The Acting Speaker upheld the point of order and directed the member to withdraw his remarks. PD 25/05/2006, pp 438-9 4. During a personal explanation the Speaker ordered the Leader of the House to withdraw the comment that a member lied. Objection was taken to the way the Leader of the House had withdrawn the comment and he was asked again to withdraw his remark. PD 19/09/2006, p 1809 5. Premier asked to withdraw "Perhaps there is some medication for that" when referring to another member. PD 28/09/2006, p 2565|
|2005 Precedent||1. Following the Speaker's ruling in relation to the use of words implying that a member is lying a point of order was raised that the Deputy Premier had accused someone of lying in his answer to a question without notice and that he should be asked to withdraw the comment. The Speaker noted that to accuse anyone of lying does not accord with the Westminster tradition of parliamentary behaviour and does not comply with the standards of the House. The Speaker asked members to ensure that when they are making contributions to uphold the standards of the House, not lower them. PD 24/03/2005, p 14930 2. Following the conclusion of questions without notice the Leader of the House attempted to raise a point of order in relation to the use of profanities by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Speaker did not consider the point of order but reminded members that it was incumbent upon them to uphold the Westminster standards of behaviour in the House. PD 24/03/2005, p 14937 3. During the consideration of urgent motions the Leader of the Opposition referred to a member as "love". The member rose on a point of order noting that a number of Opposition members had made gender comments in the Chamber including "You have lovely hair today", referring to someone as "darling" or "love". The member stated that she considered the terms unprofessional and an insult to every woman in New South Wales, not just the women in the House. The member asked for an apology and for the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the comment, which was complied with. PD 06/04/2005, p 15151 4. During the debate on a matter of public importance a Minister referred to a member of the Opposition as "a liar" whereupon the member rose on a point of order noting that previous rulings of the Chair had been made that the term "liar" was not permitted. The Minister retracted the term before the Chair ruled on the matter. PD 03/05/2005, p 15434 5. During questions without notice a point of order was raised by an Opposition member that a Minister had used u|
|2004 Precedent||1. During debate on an urgent motion, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to a Parliamentary Secretary as an "idiot", whereupon the Deputy Speaker placed him on three calls to order. A point of order was raised by a Minister that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was abusing his position as a member of Parliament by calling another member an idiot and that he should behave with some decorum. The Deputy Speaker upheld the point of order. PD 24/02/2004, p 6443 2. During the second reading debate on a bill the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated that a member was "pissed" and that he should not be in the Chamber drunk to which a point of order was raised asking him to withdraw his allegations. The Acting - Speaker advised the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he would uphold the point of order and asked him to withdraw the offensive remark. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition refused to do so and was subsequently named for using offensive words and refusing to withdraw them. He was suspended from the House for two sitting days. PD 10/03/2004, pp 7080 - 7083 3. During debate on a motion for urgent consideration in relation to public school funding comments were made that implied a Parliamentary secretary did not understand the public school system because she did not have children. The Parliamentary Secretary rose on a point of order and asked that the member withdraw the comments. The point of order was upheld. PD 17/03/2004, p 7460 4. During the second reading debate on a bill, a point of order was raised that the Opposition spokesperson for a bill was reflecting on the findings of a Judge in relation to an inquiry into the Waterfall rail disaster and asked the Chair to direct him to withdraw or to cease following that line of debate. The Acting-Speaker upheld the point of order and drew the attention of the member speaking to the remarks made. PD 31/03/2004, p 7903 5. During the debate on a general business motion, a member commented on the recent birth of the Leader of the Opposition's son. The|
|2003 Precedent||1. A member raised a point of order that the member speaking had accused the Premier of telling lies. The Speaker advised that the Chair extends a degree of latitude to members who question the veracity of statements made by other members, a claim that a member has told a straight-out lie is out of order unless the claim can be verified. The Speaker noted that on this occasion that he did not believe this was the case and upheld the point of order. PD 01/05/2003, 164 2. During debate a Minister stated that the Leader of the Opposition was "lying" telling "untruths" and that he was "economical with the facts". A member then raised a point of order requesting the Speaker to direct the Minister to withdraw his accusation that the Leader of the Opposition had lied. The Speaker reminded members that the Chair objected to a statement that a member is telling lies or has told a lie and as this was not the case that no point of order was involved. The member went on to argue that the Minister had transgressed an earlier ruling of the Speaker by accusing the Leader of the Opposition of "lying his head off". The Speaker advised that to say somebody is lying his head off is not quite the same as saying that the Leader of the Opposistion is telling lies to this Chamber and to the public. The point of order was not upheld. PD 01/05/2003, 167 3. During the moving of a motion to suspend standing and sessional orders the Deputy Leader of the Opposition commented that the Leader of the House had "blood on his hands". The Leader of the House noted that it was a disgraceful reflection on him and asked for a withdrawal. The comment was withdrawn. PD 07/05/2003, 426 4. During debate on a motion of no confidence in the Premier the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made the comment that a Minister "would sell his mother for a chance to remain on the Government front bench". A point of order was raised that it was inappropriate to refer to the mother of a member of Parliament in such a way. Upheld. PD 24/06/2003, 1958 5. During question|
|2002 Precedent||A member raised a point of order that members were not allowed to reflect on the character of the judiciary. The Speaker advised the member that he must explain which words he found offensive as the Chair is unable to make a ruling unless there is a specific reference. The member indicated that he just wanted to raise the point and as such the Speaker ruled that no point of order was involved. PD 22/11/02, 7458|
|2001 Precedent||1. Point of order taken that Members were not allowed to reflect on the character of the judiciary, as had been stated by the Speaker the previous day. The Acting Speaker ruled that there was no point of order, as the Speaker's earlier ruling had related to Private Members' Statements. A Member took a point of order, stating that he believed that the Acting Speaker's ruling was contrary to Standing Order 81 and asked that the Member be ordered to withdraw his comments about the magistrate. The Speaker, having taken the Chair, reminded Members that they were not permitted to reflect on the judiciary, except by way of substantive motion, and ordered the Member to withdraw his remarks. PD 5/9/01, 16461 2. A Member stated that comments made during Private Members' Statements were 'like being mauled by putrid sheep'. Point of order taken that the Member should withdraw that statement as it was unparliamentary. The Speaker agreed that the point of order was correct, but indicated that he could not compel the Member to withdraw his comments. PD 25/10/01, 18050|
|2000 Precedent||1. A point of order being taken, the Speaker asked the Premier to withdraw a remark about the Leader of the National Party. The Premier apologised and withdrew. PD 29/11/00, 11192|
|1999 Precedent||1. In response to a request that a member withdraw comments the Speaker stated that it was a matter for that member whether he withdrew the comments. PD 18/11/99, 3299|
|1998 Precedent||1. Comment, in relation to 0.2mm of rain, that "Some members opposite would spill more than that on an afternoon, drinking at the bar" out of order and ordered to be withdrawn. PD 1/4/98, 3589 2. Speaker deferred consideration of a point of order under Standing Order 81 until the conclusion of question time. The Speaker then ruled that standing orders do not enable the Chair to order the Minister to withdraw the statement. PD 22/10/98, 8906 3. Acting Speaker ordered a member to withdraw remarks that a member found offensive, ie, that the member would not waste his time going to Gallipoli. PD 11/11/98, 9716|
|1997 Precedent||1. Speaker ruled that for a member to tell another member to "shut up" was out of order as the member may not determine who speaks in the House. Remark withdrawn by member by order of the Speaker. PD 09/04/97, 7326 2. On a point of order being raised regarding offensive words, the Speaker asked the member to whom the words were addressed whether he wished them to be withdrawn before ruling on the matter. PD 09/04/97, 7326 3. On objection being taken to the use of the word "dishonest", the Speaker ruled that this was a very robust Chamber and that few members would take exception to the use of that word in the heat of debate. PD 10/04/97, 7435 4. Speaker declined to rule on words to which offence was taken because that he did not hear them. PD 10/04/97, 7437-8 5. Objection to reference to the Government with words such as "coward" and "hypocrites" not accepted as it was a robust Chamber and the words did not refer to any particular Government member. PD 15/04/97, 7515 6. Acting Speaker ordered Member to withdraw all inferences from the suggestion that a Member should be breathalysed. PD 14/05/97, 8652 7. Acting Speaker ruled that he would not rule the term "scumbag" was unparliamentary language. PD 14/05/97, 8652 8. Offensive remark made regarding Members of the Opposition made (9417), withdrawn and apology given (9420), and subsequently expunged from the record (9449). PD 28/05/97 9. Objections to a member being called "you goose" overruled. PD 16/10/97, 942 10. Acting Speaker ruled that while the term "enviro-nazi" may be considered offensive, it is not unparliamentary. PD 23/10/97, 1360 11. Speaker accepted a member's assertion that use of the term "f'wit" was unbecoming and unparliamentary. PD 12/11/97, 1627 12. Deputy Speaker directed the member for Gosford to withdraw the remark that the member for Kiama was full of red wine. PD, 13/11/95, 1825 13. Acting Speaker warned the member for Pittwater that it was inappropriate to reflect on members of the judiciary. PD, 19/11/97, 2129-30|
|1995 Precedent||1. Chairman ruled that a direction to withdraw certain words ("gutless bastard") did not imply a direction to apologise unless the matter is extremely distasteful. PD 22/11/95, 3793|
|1994 Precedent||1. Point of order taken that the word 'bullshit' was offensive. The Speaker replied that whether a word was unparliamentary depended upon the contact of the debate in which it was used. In this case the member was quoting something that appeared in a recent magazine, and in that context it was perfectly acceptable. PD 16/3/94, 819 2. Minister ordered to withdraw the imputation that a member was lying during the course of a debate. PD 14/4/94, 1188 3. Point of order taken that the inference contained in the phrase "you let them loose" was offensive. The Speaker ruled that the words did not come under the category of offensive. PD 5/5/94, 2086 4. Member directed to withdraw the phrase "you are a perjurer" and apologise. Later the same member was directed to withdraw the phrase "This man is corrupt". PD 11/5/94, 2331 5. Member ordered to withdraw the term "liar". PD 15/9/94, 3089 6. Member directed to withdraw reference to the 'incontinence' of the Minister. PD 22/9/94, 3598 7. Member directed to unreservedly withdraw remarks made about a member who was not present in the Chamber at the time. PD 13/10/94, 4028 8. Deputy Speaker reminded member of a ruling by Speaker Ellis about reflections on members of the judiciary. Any comments must be relevant to the scope of the bill before the House. PD 27/10/94, 4833 9. Member directed to withdraw remarks 'How much money did the National Party get' and apologise. Member replied that he had not used those specific words. The Chair having received contradictory statements from each side, ruled that as he had not heard the words used, he was not in a position to make a determination one way or the other. PD 16/11/94, 5138-9 10. Point of order not upheld that member's remarks were offensive. The Acting Speaker ruled that the comments were no less offensive than any other comments made in the cut and thrust of debate. PD 17/11/94, 5239|
|1993 Precedent||1. Point of order taken that member had made an offensive comment. Member withdrew the offensive word. PD 10/3/93, 614 2. The Speaker ruled that the Leader of the Opposition had been in the House long enough to know that what he just did was grossly disorderly. He asked him to stand and apologise to the Chair, without qualification The Chair accepted the apology, but advised the member to be aware of what was happening in the Chamber. Later the Speaker again ordered the Leader of the Opposition to apologise for using the phrase 'you lie', which in the context of the debate, was unparliamentary. The member withdrew and apologised to the Speaker, whereupon a point of order was taken that he should have apologised to the Premier. The Speaker ruled that the apology and withdrawal may well have been directed to the Chair, however he did not think that anyone could have conceived that it would be other than an apology and a withdrawal to the Premier, which was the direction given. PD 22/4/93, 1495, 1496 3. Member ordered to withdrew the phrase 'you're a big rat', without qualification. PD 28/4/93, 1704 4. Minister ordered to withdraw remark 'This is the anti-Aboriginal member who wants to make remarks about the Aboriginal community in this State'. PD 11/5/93, 1961 5. Point of order taken that, on at least five occasions, one member had referred to another as 'a liar, a peddler of lies and a liar without guts' and that member should withdraw remarks and apologise. The Speaker stated that it was a rule of the House that the offended member must raise the matter and ask for a withdrawal, not another member on his behalf. PD 20/5/93, 2454 6. Point of order not upheld that the word 'goons' was offensive. PD 21/5/93, 2617 7. Member ordered to withdraw offensive remark without qualification. Later, another point of order having been taken, the Speaker reminded members that they should not be over sensitive to the general thrust and parry of debate in the Chamber. However, he undertook to listen careful to the member speaki|
|1992 Precedent||1. Attention called to well-established rulings that a member may take objection only if offensive words are directed to that member. There is no capacity to seek withdrawal of a collective expression used to describe a group of members. PD 19/3/92, 1454 2. Member ordered to withdraw the words 'gutless' and 'criminal' without qualification. PD 27/3/92, 2243 3. Member ordered to withdraw remark concerning former Premier and apologise. PD 24/6/92, 4156 4. Member for Vaucluse ordered to withdraw remark without qualification and unreservedly that member for Manly considered to be offensive and brought into question his integrity as a medical practitioner. Point of order then taken by the Member for Manly that the Member for Vaucluse be directed to withdraw his remark about 'the feral cat from Bligh'. the Deputy Speaker upheld the point of order, even though the remark was not directed at the Member for Manly. Member for Vaucluse ordered to withdraw the remark. PD 24/6/92, 4166, 4167, 4168 The Member for Bligh subsequently made a personal explanation concerning which she found to be an offensive statement by member for Vaucluse that 'Clover comes cheap. There is nothing that a $1,000 donation to her campaign cannot fix'. She sought a withdrawal and apology from the member for Vaucluse. The member for Vaucluse not being in the House, the House accepted the personal explanation. The Speaker subsequently directed the Member for Vaucluse to withdraw and apologise. PD 30/6/92, 4749, 4800 5. Member called to order for using the word 'scumbags'. PD 3/9/92, 5568 6. Member asked to withdraw remarks about Minister's health which the Minister considered to be particularly offensive. PD 16/9/92, 5865-6 7. Member ordered to withdraw remark 'graft'. PD 24/9/92, 6566 8. Following an answer to a supplementary question, Minister apologised to member that, in providing information, he was trying to be helpful, and did not mean to upset her. Point of order taken that the member concerned, who had just left the Chamber, had used bad lan|
|1966 Cons. Ruling||SPEAKER ELLIS: The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question as to how in effect an honourable member might cast a reflection on a member of the judiciary, and I replied to him that this may be done by the moving of a substantive motion. The Leader of the Opposition then interjected - and it appears in Hansard - "That is what we intended to do. That is what we are about to do." In other words it is plain that the Leader of the Opposition confirmed the view that I took that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was intending to cast reflection upon a member of the judiciary. The question asked now by the Leader of the Opposition affords me the opportunity to make, for the guidance of honourable members, some observations concerning reflections upon the judiciary. The conduct and actions of a judge may be criticized or reflected upon only by a specific and distinct substantive motion naming the judge and stating the charge or complaint against him, and the honourable member who moves such a motion must produce evidence to support his charges. The motion must be confined to the charge or complaint and must not relate to other matters as well. It is not sufficient merely to impute improper motives or to make reflections, insinuations, or innuendoes in a general way. The motion must be specific. This has been the accepted practice of the House of Commons since time immemorial, and it has been the accepted practice of this Parliament since its establishment. The object of this rule is not to protect malicious or dishonest judges, but to protect the public from the danger to which the administration of justice would be exposed if persons therein were readily subject to inquiry for malice or misconduct. It is essential that judges should be permitted to administer the law not only independently and freely and without favour, but also without fear of attack upon them or their decisions, which in the nature of the system must inevitably incur the displeasure of one person or another. If this were not the rule attacks upo|