Points of Order — Speakers and Presiding Officers—“Today in the House” Video

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If this is the same matter, Mr Brownlee, then—

No, no. It’s quite different.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will take the member’s word.

Absolutely; as you should, as the man who protects parliamentary privilege, Mr Speaker. But I say, Mr Speaker, I do raise this, mindful of Standing Order 15(1), and take some comfort, though, that there are Standing Orders on the subsequent page that make it clear that there are some bounds to where we do take things in discussions with the Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, I’ve just looked at Standing Order 15(1), and it does go to the Clerk running the election.

No, no. Here it is here—Speakers’ orders—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Speakers’ rulings, not the Standing Orders. Right? I’ll go to that, then.

Well, forgive me, please, Mr Speaker. I throw myself at your mercy once again. I raise this point: we notice that, in the last two days, at least, you have done a video preamble to the House business on each day, which is a new initiative that you have—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, not at all. It’s a continuation of a previous initiative of my predecessor.

Is that right?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

Right, well, I just would like you to perhaps give us some indication of what are the bounds for what you will be talking about each day in that regard, particularly if you consider it under that 15/1, which talks about the role of the Speaker particularly being Parliament’s man. There’s some concern that the popularity of this video may eventually lead to commentary on what the House is likely to do, which would be, of course, completely out of order.

The member will be aware, of course—and I’m reluctant to get into this discussion, because it is totally out of order—that the Order Paper has been published, and I base my comments on that. I base my comments on other things that are publicly available at the time or have been provided to all parties—for example, today, I referred to the fact that we would be having a ministerial statement, because that had been indicated to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I did not disclose the fact that Mr Goldsmith had made an application for an urgent debate, because that would have given the Government—if any of them were amongst the very few people who had looked at it—an indication of something—[Interruption] Order!—that I should not have done. So that is the basis of it. If members want to look at it and go back, look through the old ones, I am trying to style myself on my predecessor, but I’m afraid I don’t quite have his pleasant face.

Speakers and Presiding Officers—Rulings, Timing of Commenting on