| Related Orders, Precedents and Rulings |
|---|
| 2013 Precedent | 1. During question time, the Speaker ruled that there was no point of order under Standing Order 73 but directed the Premier to return to the leave of the question. PD 27/2/2013, 18109 2. During a debate on a general notice of motion, the Acting-Speaker upheld a point of order under Standing Order 73. PD 27/3/2013, 19516 |
| 2012 Precedent | Following a point of order the Speaker reminded a member that under standing order 73 imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on members are disorderly. PD 22/5/2012, 11685; PD 30/5/2012, 12345 |
| Notes for the Chair | Personal Attacks (SO 73) Standing Order 73 provides that Members are not able to make imputations of improper motives or make personal reflections on any Member of Parliament except by substantive motion i.e. by way of a notice of motion and full debate. Members are not prevented from criticising other Members for their actions or policies if it is relevant to the subject matter under discussion. The Chair may intervene under Standing Order 74 and if the Chair considers words directed at a Member to be offensive the Chair can insist on their withdrawal. When insisting on a withdrawal the Speaker must be satisfied that the words complained of are reasonably capable of giving offence. It is disorderly for a Member to refuse to withdraw remarks when ordered to do so by the Chair. In extreme cases the Chair may name the Member for refusing to withdraw the remarks in accordance with Standing Order 250. If allegations or imputations of improper motives or personal reflections are made against a Member, that Member can seek the leave of the Chair to make a personal explanation when there is no question before the House. The general principles are: Members of Parliament are prevented from making accusations against other Members except by way of substantive motion. Allegations made against other Members can only be made by substantive motion. Members can make passing reference criticising other Members but cannot make a sustained attack except by way of substantive motion. Key rulings: An attack on a Member must be done by way of substantive motion. Aquilina, PD 20/10/2005, p. 19070 The Chair generally allows a degree of latitude in the cut and thrust of a robust debate. Murray, PD 11/04/2000, p. 4414 It is improper to cast reflections on a Member's motives. Ellis, PD 30/11/1965, p. 2549 |
| 2011 Precedent | 1. Point of order upheld that a personal attack should be made by way of substantive motion. PD 31/05/2011, 1544; PD 21/06/2011, 3000; PD 23/06/2011, 3314; PD 23/8/2011, 4438 2. During a Minister's response to a question 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. Point of order upheld that a personal reflection on another member is disorderly unless it is made by way of a substantive motion. PD 8/08/2011, 3851; PD 8/08/2011, 3861 4. Following a point of order the Speaker reminded the Deputy Premier that personal attacks on members are not acceptable. Following a further point of order the Speaker warned the Deputy Premier that if he continued to flout the ruling he would be asked to resume his seat. PD 9/08/2011, 3984 & 3985 5. Following a point of order the Speaker warned the Leader of the Opposition that he should not make personal comments or cast personal reflections on the Minister. PD 9/8/2011, 3995; PD 24/8/2011, 4585 6. Following a point of order that the Minister in answering a question was making imputations of improper motives against another member, the Speaker warned the Minister against making personal comments or imputations. PD 11/8/2011, 4290; PD 20/10/2011, 6897; PD 11/11/2011, 7461 7. Following a point of order about improper imputations the Speaker reminded the Premier about the standing order relating to making improper reflections on other members. PD 23/8/2011, 4420 8. Following a point of order about the relevancy of comments regarding the former government the Deputy Speaker warned members that If a member wishes to launch an attack on a particular member of Parliament, they must do so by way of substantive motion. PD 24/8/2011, 4592 9. Following a point of order a member was reminded that personal reflection on members is disorderly. PD 25/8/2011, 4749 (2) & 4750 10. Minister's attention drawn to the sta |
| 2010 Precedent | 1. During debate on a motion accorded priority a point of order was taken that the member speaking had reflected on another member. The member taking the point of order requested that the reflection be withdrawn, which the member speaking did accordingly. PD 24/2/2010, 20861 2. During debate on a general business motion the Assistant Speaker reminded a member that attacks on other members can be made by way of substantive motion only. PD 11/3/2010, 21329 3. During a private member's statement a point of order was taken that the member speaking had made an attack on another person (the Opposition candidate for the member's seat), and that such attacks could only be made by way of substantive motion. The Assistant Speaker did not uphold the point of order on the grounds that the relevant standing order made reference only to other members of Parliament. PD 1/6/2010, 23391 4. During debate on a motion accorded priority the Deputy Speaker upheld a point of order that a member was reflecting on another member of the House and that such reflections could be made by way of substantive motion only. PD10/6/2010, 24276 5. During debate on a general business motion a point of order was taken that a member's comments had imputed improper motives to another member. The member was asked to withdraw the comment, he refused, and the Acting Speaker subsequently upheld the point of order. PD 24/6/2010, 24759-24760 6. During consideration of motions to be accorded priority the Acting Speaker reminded a member that he was not permitted to make personal attacks on other members, except by way of substantive motion. PD 23/9/2010, 26041 7. During a private member's statement the Acting Speaker upheld a point of order that the member speaking was attacking another member of the House and that such attacks could only be made by way of substantive motion. PD 24/9/2010, 26105 8. During debate on a bill the Speaker reminded the Leader of the Opposition that attacks on other members must be made by way of substantive motion. PD 9/11/2010, 2 |
| 2009 Precedent | 1. During debate on a general business motion the Assistant Speaker upheld a point of order that a member had attacked another member of the House and advised the member speaking that such attacks can only be made by way of substantive motion. PD 7/5/2009, 14893 2. During debate on a matter of public importance the Acting Speaker upheld a point of order that a member had attacked another member of the House and advised the member speaking that such attacks can only be made by way of substantive motion. PD 13/5/2009, 15275 3. During debate on a motion to suspend standing and sessional orders a member took a point of order that the member speaking had made a personal attack on her. The Speaker reminded the member speaking that attacks on other members can only be made by way of substantive motion. PD 16/6/2009, 16002 4. During consideration of motions to be accorded priority the Speaker upheld a point of order that a member had made an attack on another member and advised the member speaking that such attacks can only be made by way of substantive motion. PD 24/9/2009, 18187 5. During debate on a matter of public importance the Assistant Speaker upheld a point of order that a member had reflected on another member. The Assistant Speaker advised the House that reflections on other members can only be made by way of substantive motion and directed the member to return to the debate before the House. PD 21/10/2009, 18490 6. During debate on a motion accorded priority the Assistant Speaker upheld two points of order that a member had made imputations of improper motives in relation to other members. On both occasions the Assistant Speaker reminded the member that such attacks can only be made by way of substantive motion. PD 24/11/2009, 19766-19767 |
| 2008 Precedent | 1. At the conclusion of a private member's statement the Deputy Speaker reminded the member speaking that members cannot reflect on another member except by way of substantive motion. PD 27/2/2008, 5525 2. During Question Time a point of order was taken that a Minister had reflected on a member during an answer. The member raising the point of order stated that if the Minister wished to reflect on him, he should do so by way of substantive motion. The Speaker upheld the point of order reminded the Minister that any reflections on other members should be made by way of substantive motion only. PD 4/3/2008, 5776 3. During consideration of motions to be accorded priority a point of order was taken that the Leader of the Opposition had turned his entire contribution into a substantive attack on a member. The Speaker reminded the Leader of the Opposition that he may not attack another member except by way substantive motion. PD 4/3/2008, 5780-5781 4. During debate on a bill a point of order was taken: (a) That the member speaking had made certain allegations during his speech and that these allegations could only be made by way of substantive motion; and
(b) That the member's remarks were not relevant to the bill before the House. The Assistant Speaker upheld the point of order and asked the member to confine his remarks to the bill being debated. PD 4/3/2008, 5809 5. During debate on a bill a point of order was taken that a member was speaking outside the ambit of the bill. The member taking the point of order stated that if the member speaking wished to make personal attacks, he should do so by way of substantive motion. The Deputy Speaker upheld the point of order and directed the member speaking to confine his remarks to the bill. PD 3/4/2008, 6393 6. During debate on a bill a point of order was taken that a member, whilst quoting from an edition of the Daily Telegraph, had reflected on another member. The Assistant Speaker upheld the point of order, stated that quoting from a newspaper did not give the member l |
| 2007 Precedent | 1. During Question Time a number of points of order were taken that a Minister made allegations about another member and that such allegations should only be made by way of substantive motion. The Speaker reminded the Minister of the standing orders on a number of occasions before upholding the point of order and asking the Minister to desist from making such allegations. PD 10/5/2007, 244-246 2. During debate on a matter of public importance a point order was taken that a member had implied that a Minister had improper motives. The Acting Speaker upheld the point of order and directed the member speaking to restrict his comments to the leave of the matter before the House. PD 6/6/2007, 912 3. A point order was taken that a member had made a personal reflection on the character of a Minister. The Acting Speaker upheld the point of order. PD 6/6/2007, 913 4. During debate on a bill, two of points of order were taken that a member had reflected on another member. On both occasions the Deputy Speaker upheld the points of order and directed the member speaking to focus on the subject matter of the debate. PD 7/6/2007, 1023-1024 5. During Question Time a Minister made reference to a media report about a member's comments allegedly made outside of the House. A point of order was raised that the Minister was making an "attack" on the member and that such allegations should only be made by way of substantive motion. The Speaker upheld the point of order and called the Minister to conclude her answer. PD 7/6/2007, 1057 6. During debate on a bill a point of order was taken that a member had made a personal attack against another member and that such reflections should only be made by way of substantive motion. The Speaker upheld the point of order and directed the member speaking to make his contribution relevant to the bill being debated. PD 21/6/2007, 1521 7. During consideration of motions to be accorded priority a point of order was taken that allegations made by the Leader of The Nationals about another member were ' |
| S.O. 82 of 1994 (Repealed) | 82. Imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members of either House are disorderly other than by substantive motion. |
| 2006 Precedent | 1. During the consideration of urgent motions the Leader of the Opposition commented on whether a member was in a "fit state" whereupon the Speaker warned him that he should not cast aspersions on a member of the House. PD 30/03/2006, p 21873 2. During the debate on a motion for urgent consideration the Deputy Speaker warned the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that if he wished to launch a substantive attack on other members he must use the appropriate forms of the House. PD 23/05/2006, p 104 3. During the debate on a motion to suspend standing and sessional orders a point of order was raised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was reflecting on other members and should be directed to return to the substance of the motion. Upheld. PD 25/05/2006, p 424 4. During questions without notice a point of order was raised that the standing orders require a member who wishes to launch an attack on another member to do so by way of substantive motion. The Speaker cautioned members against making direct attacks on other members but noted that in answering the question the Minister was quoting from the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act and was at liberty to advise the House on the implications of the legislation for members. PD 21/09/2006, pp 2114-5 5. During the second reading debate on a bill a point of order was raised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was attacking other members of the House. The Speaker warned the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the debate did not provide an ambit opportunity for members to contravene Standing Order 82 by imputing improper motives to, or making personal reflections on, members of this House and the other House unless it is done by way of substantive motion. PD 16/11/2006, p 4213 |
| 2005 Precedent | 1. During the debate on a motion for urgent consideration a point of order was raised that the member was not addressing his proposed amendment but was making a personal attack on Government members. The Deputy - Speaker reminded the member speaking that if he wished to make a personal attack on another member that the standing orders provide that it should be done by way of a substantive motion. PD 01/03/2005, p 14326 2. During the second reading debate on a bill a point of order was raised that the member speaking was not only raising points of order that were irrelevant to the debate but that he had also launched into a personal attack upon another member which can only be done by a substantive motion. The Deputy Speaker upheld the point of order. PD 23/06/2005, p 17475 3. During the consideration of urgent motions a point of order was raised that the Leader of the Opposition had not stated why his motion was urgent but was attacking a member noting that he should either move a substantive motion or speak to the motion for urgency. The Speaker noted that both points of order were valid and reminded the Leader of the Opposition of the standing orders in relation to urgent motions. PD 23/06/2005, p 17498 4. During the debate on a motion for special adjournment a point of order was raised about the assertions made about a member being drunk in the Chamber. The Speaker noted that a number of assertions had been made about members of the House that almost amounted to substantive attacks on those members. The Speaker also noted that a number of assertions had been made about persons who are not members of the House. The Speaker directed all members to comply with the standing orders noting that if a member proposes to launch a substantial attack on another member, it must be by way of substantive motion. He also commented that persons outside the Chamber have little recourse in defending themselves against accusations made in the House and that members should think seriously before besmirching the reputation of mem |
| 2004 Precedent | 1. During the giving of a supplementary answer by a Minister a member raised a point of order that the Minister was attacking him and that if he wished to do so it must be by substantive motion so that he could have an opportunity to respond. The Speaker did not uphold the point of order noting that the Minister was providing a supplementary answer and not reflecting on the member. PD 11/03/2004, pp 7171 - 7172 2. During the committee of the whole stage a member demanded the right to respond to a Minister's interjections and made a number of adverse comments about the Minister. The Temporary Chairman ordered the member to come to order noting that his remarks were not only outside the leave of the amendments but that they also breached the convention that such allegations should be made by way of substantive motion. PD 22/09/2004, p 11347 3. During the second reading debate on a bill a member rose on a point of order claiming that the member speaking was making offensive comments about her and attacking members rather than speaking to the legislation before the House. The member speaking argued that it was not a point of order but a contribution to debate whereupon the Deputy Speaker ruled that if a member wanted to make a substantive complaint about another member there were procedures available for them to do so. PD 28/10/2004, p 12245 4. During the debate on a motion for urgent consideration a point of order was raised that should a member wish to attack the character of any member standing order 82 specifically requires them to draft and present a substantive motion about an assessment of the member's character. It was argued that the motion calls on the Leader of the Opposition to do something and for another member to apologise. It was also put that as the motion was not a substantive motion that allowed an attack on the character of a member it should be ruled out of order. The Acting-Speaker did not agree ruling that there was no point of order. PD 08/12/2004, p 13578 |
| 2003 Precedent | 1. During the consideration of urgent motions a point of order was raised that a member was not establishing the urgency of his motion but rather was attacking the Minister for Police. The Speaker warned the member that he could only attack the Minister by way of substantive motion. PD 28/05/2003, 1350 - 51 2. During debate on a bill a member raised a point of order that his character had been impugned. Another member who had been speaking made a number of comments about this issue to which another point of order was raised that he was not talking to the bill and was instead attacking a member of the House. The member speaking argued that he was responding to interjections. The Acting-Speaker noted that the point of order is probably well founded but commented that remarks of the member speaking were only passing references. Another point of order was raised that the member speaking was continuing to attack the other member to which the Acting-Speaker responded that should the member wish to continue with his remarks that he should avail himself of the standing orders that provide the necessary forms and procedures relating to substantive motions and ruled that he could not continue in his present vain. PD 28/05/2003, 1405 - 6 3. During the Committee of the Whole stage of a bill a point of order was raised that the member speaking was misusing the standing orders of the House to launch into an unsubstantiated attack on another member rather than noting why he is opposed to the amendment before the Committee. The Temporary Chairman upheld the point of order and ordered the member speaking to return to the leave of the amendment and to conclude his speech as soon as possible. PD 28/05/2003, 1410 4. During the moving of general business motions the Acting-Speaker upheld a point of order that the member speaking was launching an attack upon the Minister for Fair Trading and that if he wished to do so that it must be done by way of substantive motion. PD 30/10/2003, 4496 5. During the second reading debate on a bill |
| 2002 Precedent | 1. Point of order taken that the Premier was criticising the Leader of the Opposition and that he should only do so by way of substantive motion. The Speaker ruled that there is a difference between criticism of a member's actions and a vitriolic attack on another member. The Speaker indicated that the Premier was commenting on past events involving the Leader of the Opposition and that it was permissible under the Standing Orders. PD 12/11/02, 6479 2. Point of order taken that a Minister was attacking a member and that he may only do so by way of substantive motion. Not upheld. The Speaker advised that there is a tradition of robust debate in the House and that a degree of latitude is provided to members. He also indicated that if any members feels that they need to explain matters they will be provided with time at the conclusion of question time. PD 14/11/02, 6822-3 3. Point of order taken that a member was launching an attack on another member of the House and that it could only be done by way of substantive motion. The Speaker did not uphold the point of order but indicated to the member speaking that she was straying from the subject matter of the motion. PD 14/11/02, 6847-8 |
| 2001 Precedent | 1. Point of order taken that a Minister was engaging in an attack on another Member. The Speaker ruled that the point of order had some substance. The Chair always exercised some latitude in allowing Ministers to take to task a Member who has criticized the Minister outside the House, however he had now spent 10 minutes attacking that Member. PD 29/5/01, 13831 2. Point of order upheld that a Member was attacking another Member when making a private member's statement. PD 3/6/01, 14349 3. Point of order taken that an attack upon another Member must be by way of substantive motion. The Speaker ruled that the Minister was replying to a question asked by that Member. PD 28/6/01, 15784 4. Point of order taken that the Premier was attacking the Leader of the Opposition and that the Speaker should apply the same rules to the Premier as the Opposition. The Speaker ruled that the point of order had some substance and commented that the Premier would not repeat the action. PD 28/11/01, 19062 |
| 1999 Precedent | 1. Responding to a point of order the Deputy Speaker stated that, in the cut and thrust of debate, the comments made by a Parliamentary Secretary were not out of order. Later, responding to a further point of order [and a reminder of his previous ruling], the Deputy Speaker remarked that a member seeking to launch a personal attack against another member should use the proper processes of the House and upheld that the member was not speaking to the substance of the motion. PD 27/05/99, 588, 590 2. The Speaker made a statement in relation to the reflection on individuals who are not members of the House reasserting the principle that reflections on individuals should be by way of substantive motion and in relation to private members’ statements generally. VP 09/11/99, 198
PD 09/11/99, 2433 |
| 1998 Precedent | 1. The Speaker allowed an answer to a question that arguably reflected on members as the matters raised in the answer fell into the same category as the matters raised in the question. PD 28/05/98, 5416-7 2. On objection being taken that an answer was imputing improper motives to a member, the Speaker ruled that the Minister was entitled to bring to the attention of the House the impact of some earlier decisions on certain people. PD 28/05/98, 5424 3. It is not to impute a improper motive for the Minister to point out to the House how he believes a member may have benefitted from representations made. PD 28/05/98, 5425 4. The Speaker drew the attention of members to his concerns with the framing and content of some questions without notice and advised that under Standing Order 137 questions without notice should not include imputation of improper motives, argument, inference, expression of opinion or unnecessary additional information. Under Standing Order 82 personal attacks and the impugning of improper motives upon members are disorderly other than by substantive motion. VP 02/06/98, 668 5. The Acting Speaker required a member to withdraw an imputation that members had received money in return for support of a bill. PD 12/11/98, 9873-4 |
| 1998 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER MURRAY : I ask all members to take particular note of the statement I am about to make in relation to questions without notice. In recent weeks the Chair has become increasingly concerned about the form and content of questions without notice. I remind members that the provisions of Standing Order 137 apply to questions without notice in the same way as they apply to questions upon notice. There appears to be a tendency to include in questions without notice imputations of improper motives, arguments, inferences and expressions of opinion. The inclusion of all or any of those matters in a question without notice would cause the Chair to rule the question out of order. The launching of a personal attack or the imputing of improper motives in the guise of a question without notice is in breach of Standing Order 82. Such matters should be dealt with by way of substantive motion. In essence, questions without notice should be brief, singular in nature, to the point and, most important, they should not contain additional information or asides that are not necessary to make the question intelligible. The Chair proposes to enforce those guidelines. If members are in doubt as to the admissibility of their questions, I suggest they avail themselves of the excellent advice of the Clerks at the table. PD 2/6/98, 5514
VP 2/6/98, 668 |
| 1997 Precedent | 1. In response to objection to a question being asked whether a Minister was under investigation by ICAC, the Speaker ruled that during question time it is in order for Opposition members to ask questions about the conduct of Ministers in relation to their portfolios. PD 26/11/97, 2603 |
| 1996 Cons. Ruling | SPEAKER MURRAY: In the context of the behaviour of members during question time last Thursday [17 October], and threats of actions by members reported in the media over the weekend, I wish to make some comments about the general behaviour of members. Parliament is held in our society as a paramount institution to be regarded with respect. Indeed, school groups visiting the Parliament are instructed to be on their very best behaviour when sitting in the galleries. To earn and maintain that respect members must set an example as role models. Further, examples of rowdy behaviour by members contradict and undermine the positive values of a participatory democracy being instilled through civics education. At the same time I do not want to shackle members, who have the undoubted right of freedom of speech in that they are protected from legal proceedings being taken against them. As Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice says: Subject to the rules of order in debate . . . a Member may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals . However, to balance this freedom of speech there is a countervailing responsibility to use this right with considered care and due caution. I warn all members that the Chair will not tolerate a repeat of last Thursday's behaviour during question time. PD 22/10/96, 5126 |
| 1996 Precedent | 1. Point of order taken (and not upheld) that imputations were being made by Minister when she was relating to the House part of a report that mentioned the member. Speaker ruled that it was not a reflection to quote from a report. PD 23/4/96, 353. Speaker subsequently allowed words “corrupt conduct” to be used in the same context. PD 23/4/96, 354. Further point of order taken that member was now not quoting from the report (not upheld). PD 23/4/96, 355. |
| 1994 Precedent | 1. The Speaker warned member that serious allegations against members could be made only by way of substantive motion and asked him to desist from that line. PD 8/3/94, 308 2. Point of order taken that member had transgressed the rules of the House by making a substantive attack on another member. The Speaker ruled that his interpretation of the member's remarks was not the same as that of the member taking the point of order and that the member could continue. PD 14/4/94, 1197 3. Point of order taken that minister had raised a matter that was clearly criticism of another member. The Speaker ruled that questions about the probity of members of Parliament were traditionally allowed and provided that the Minister gave factual material in accordance with the answer there was little the Chair could do to intervene. Minister then asked the member to withdraw the accusation that he had peddled information concerning another member to the press gallery. The Speaker replied that that was part of the cut and thrust of the Chamber. PD 14/4/94, 1211-2 4. During debate on a censure motion against a Minister, a member referred to the actions of another member. Point of order taken and upheld that attacks on members could not be made in general debate and that a substantive motion must be moved. Several members then spoke to the ruling, indicating that the remarks were acceptable during the cut and thrust of debate. The Deputy Speaker replied that the censure motion had been under debate for almost 10 hours and continuity was a problem. He was not aware of everything that had occurred in the debate prior to his having taken the Chair and therefore he must err on the side of discretion. He indicated that he may have erred in his earlier ruling as he was not in the Chair when previous members had spoken, but the member against whom the point of order had been taken should confine his comments to the motion and bear in mind the rules of the House regarding attacks on other members. He added that if the member was rebutting earli |
| 1993 Precedent | 1. Point of order taken that a member's attack on the shadow leader of the House was unwarranted and should be made by substantive motion only. The Chairman replied that he did not hear any comments directed to the shadow leader of the House and there was no point of order. PD 4/3/93, 347 2. Point of order not upheld that allegations made against people outside the Parliament must be made by way substantive motion. The Speaker stated that the standing order only applied to members of Parliament and that the traditional attitude of this and all Parliaments in the Westminster system was that members who cast aspersions on people outside the House were responsible for their actions. The wrath or otherwise of the community would determine whether or not their actions were appropriate. PD 9/3/93, 462 3. Point of order taken during question time that if Minister was intending to criticise a member in another place, he should do so by way of substantive motion. The Speaker stated that he did not hear precisely what the Minister said as there was considerable interjection at the time. However, he gained the general impression that it was unparliamentary language. Although it was questionable whether the rule about criticising members in another place extended to responses to interjections, or such things, he asked members to exercise decorum and to use temperate language in the Chamber. He directed the Minister to withdraw the remark. Later, a further point of order was taken that a member must use the proper forms of the House to make an attack upon another member. Member replied that the Standing Orders provided that members may ask Ministers questions about their performance in regard to matters relating to public affairs. He submitted that it also should be equally open for members to ask questions about members, even if they were members of the shadow ministry in another House. The Speaker stated that there were ample rulings to the effect that, provided material given in an answer was relevant to the question, the |
| 1992 Precedent | 1. During discussion on a matter of public importance on the Packard Motor Company point of order submitted about the member was attacking another member over his personal conduct. The Speaker ruled that the scope of the motion was exceedingly narrow and did not necessarily impute improper motives or use offensive or unbecoming words in respect of the member. The Speaker also noted that standing orders related to matters that occurred in the course of debate, rather than the phrasing of a motion. He ruled the motion in order but warned the member to ensure that his remarks did not contravene standing orders. Later the member was warned that his comments were infringing the Speaker's ruling. PD 10/3/92, 849-58 2. Member continually referred to the alleged actions of another member during debate on a bill. The Acting Speaker ruled that what the member may or may not have done in his private capacity had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation before the House and ordered the member speaking to resume his seat. PD 20/3/92, 1605 3. Point of order taken that Minister was making a personal attack upon a member when answering a question. The Speaker ruled that some questions may well, if they were taken beyond a certain point, be deemed to be raising matters that required the moving of a substantive motion. If the Chair applied the general rule rigidly many questions would be ruled out of order and he did not intend to apply that rule in this case. Member who was referred to in the answer later granted leave to make a personal explanation during which he advised that, as a result of the intended politicisation of an outstanding court case, a request had been made to the Courts to expedite the matter and challenged the Minister to make the allegations outside of the House. Speaker ruled that member was not entitled to debate the matter. PD 29/4/92, 3011, 3014 4. Point of order taken when member alleged that another member would use his British passport to flee the country during debate on a motion that the member |