Speaker’s Rulings — Oral Questions—Admissibility of Question No. 10

Members, I’ve had a question raised to me today about the admissibility of question No. 10, which I want to take the opportunity to clarify. Speakers’ ruling 230/4 by Speakers Wall and Smith: once a member has made a complaint to the Speaker about a matter of privilege, it is not appropriate to raise that complaint in the House by way of notice of motion, nor should the member seek to litigate the veracity through House proceedings. It is not inappropriate to ask questions in the House on the general subject of the complaint, to prohibit that would unreasonably constrain Parliament’s privilege of free speech. The question is in order.

Point of order. Sir, on that ruling, can I direct your attention to Speaker’s ruling 231/3.

SPEAKER: Well, you can.

Hon SHANE JONES: Thank you.

SPEAKER: Thanks very much. What did you want to say about it?

Hon SHANE JONES: The point is that everything that happens in public happens in Parliament. This matter that you refer to, sir, a matter of privilege that may or may not be before you—how can we possibly allow questions to take place that do not violate natural justice, as reflected in 231/3?

Well, if you’ve just listened to the ruling that I’ve just made, it’s quite clear. There’s a difference between challenging the proceedings, which is not open to Parliament, but the idea simply because there is a pending proceeding that Parliament is somehow gagged is not acceptable. So there, of course, will be a great deal of discipline upon the person asking the question and the ultimate supplementaries when it comes to this to make sure that there is no transgression of that separation.

I take your point, sir, but it also raises the importance of natural justice. Every question, every remark said in this House is public, and it’s clearly stated there that no one should use the public to influence negatively or in a jaundiced way your consideration of such matters.

That is absolutely true. If there was a speech made about this matter, a general debate comment made about this matter, or a motion made on this matter, they would all be out of order. But a question doesn’t necessarily make any allegation. A question is a question. If it transgresses into that area, then clearly we have a problem and it will be stopped.

Hon SHANE JONES: Speaking to the point of order, sir, you make a very good point, but a host of the questions to date have been riddled with falsehoods. That has the effect of acting as an echo chamber, undermining fair consideration on the basis of natural justice at a time where a final decision has not been made.

Well, that is true, but I’d ask you to consider the opening lines of 231/3, which says “It would be my preference”. Now, that is a former Speaker giving clear guidance to the House. I’ve just elucidated how that guidance might be considered by the House in the ruling I’ve just given.