Speaker's Rulings — Unparliamentary Language—Response to Interjections

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. You have previously, on 19 February, pointed out a similar ruling, and in that ruling, you made it very clear that it was “highly disorderly” to make comments like that—and they’re your words. On other occasions, you have required the offending member to take steps at a subsequent session—I think the word “spineless” was used on one occasion, and you required an apology the next sitting day. I’m wondering whether, given the nature of those and your very strong language condemning similar comments previously, that’s an appropriate course of conduct.

SPEAKER: I’ve thought very long and hard about that, and I’ve, as I say, considered all that has been said, but in the end, when you get quite a considerable amount of interjection during a member’s speech, there will always be a point of bite-back. Now, particularly I’ve referenced those Speakers’ rulings—I think it’s—47/1, 47/2, and 47/3. While they are broadly related, they’re not exactly related because, there is nothing in the content that was actually said in the words that would lead us to any conclusion around those matters. While this is something that some members might desire, it would have been appropriate for that to have been raised at the time. My reflection in those other matters was post there having been an objection raised in the House at the time.