Points of Order — Debate—Use of the Term “Misinformation”

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually want to bring, Madam Chair, to you a conversation, a point of order in the previous session of this bill that the Hon Kieran McAnulty raised, regarding in terms of a clear ruling and elucidation around one of the terms that the Minister used around misinformation.

I was very grateful that the Chair was the same Chair as the one we had before. If you remember, in the previous session on this bill the Minister specifically used the term “the pure amount of misinformation that has just been read out on what this bill does”. I understand that there’s some elucidation on the term “misinformation”, but I want to get clarification from you, Madam Chair, on Speakers’ ruling 48/1, which states “but must not accuse another member of making a statement that member knew to be incorrect.”

If we take “misinformation” as something that is incorrect, and if we take the verb that was used—that being “read out”—as someone knowingly doing or performing an action, I want to get a clarification from the Chair on whether that is considered out of order.

OK, at this point, I did undertake, about this time last week, to give a clarification on that, and I do have clarification that was, ultimately, sent to Kieran McAnulty. I don’t have the power to be able to just do it off the bat until someone asks the question, so I really appreciate the member asking that question. I understand you may have had it in writing as well, at this point?

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: No, not yet.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, I’ll check up on that.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Really, this was the information that went to the Hon Kieran McAnulty: you raised concerns about the use of the term “misinformation” in debate and whether an accusation of misinformation is the same as accusing a member of lying and therefore out of order.

Members often disagree about whether information is correct or not. In fact, that is a vitally important part of our democracy: for members to be able to share their opinions about what is correct or incorrect. It is particularly common when members have differing views on a policy or the effect of a piece of legislation. Saying that a member is misinformed or inaccurate or incorrect is completely in order as an opinion. This is a clear line crossed when a member accuses another of lying or deliberately misleading the House with their statements.

The use of the word “liar” is the only word that’s always out of order when used to describe a member—Speaker’s ruling 57/4. Knowingly spreading misinformation or spreading disinformation is deliberately deceptive. An accusation of knowing something is misinformation or disinformation and saying it anyway is an accusation of intentionally misleading the House and should be raised as a matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity. If it is raised as an accusation in debate, it is out of order and the member will be asked to withdraw and apologise.

Context is important, however, and using a word in one context may be acceptable and not acceptable in another context. That is the advice that I’ve been given, thank you.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, you can speak to the point of order.

Thank you so much for that elucidation. I think it is really helpful for the House to get that sense, to get that clarity, but I think, in light of what you have just read out, I wonder if implying that misinformation has been read out is a sense of referring to a member as deliberately misleading.

Well, I think if anyone’s referring to a member deliberately misleading, the course of action was in here [Gestures to paper] and you can actually—I’ll get the exact words around privilege, but it’s, basically, saying that you can take a privileges—I’m just trying to get the right sentence where it’s said. “Knowingly spreading misinformation or spreading disinformation is deliberately deceptive. An accusation of knowing something is misinformation or disinformation and saying it anyway is an accusation of intentionally misleading the House and should be raised as a matter of privilege.” Thank you.

Speaking to the point of order—thank you very much, Madam Chair. When we were just now speaking about the Firearms Safety Authority, Associate Minister of Justice McKee just said that there was no trust, or low trust, in that system. There is clear evidence that’s available through the Firearms Safety Authority that surveys of licence holders show strong and growing trust in the Firearms Safety Authority. Is that a matter of privilege?

OK, so I think at this point we should absolutely stop, because I’m sure that one member can make one case for what the level of trust is and another member can make another case. I don’t believe the Minister was intending to mislead anybody in that particular situation. If that member believes the opposite, I’ve just given that member the course of action.