Page 4574 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
certain procedures that were used. I therefore do not believe that the words used were either offensive or disorderly and, consequently, do not require them to be withdrawn.
On Wednesday, 23 October, Mr Berry stated that it was "gross hypocrisy" for Mr Humphries to attack a review of the 24-hour crisis service on mental health. I have reviewed the proof Hansard and have also reviewed past rulings on this matter. Such terms as "you hypocrite" and "hypocrisy" have been required by me to be withdrawn, but on another occasion similar terms were allowed when another member was acting as my deputy. I reinforce my previous rulings by concluding that the terms "hypocrisy", "hypocrite", "gross hypocrisy" or "hypocritical", when applied to members, are a reflection on the members and are therefore disorderly. I therefore call on Mr Berry to withdraw the comment.
Mr Berry: I withdraw.
QUESTION TIME
Discussion of Matter of Public Importance
MR SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Mr Stevenson proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Assembly for discussion, namely:
That question time is frequently being misused by Ministers; that many questions remain unanswered though being easy to understand and asked more than once; that time is being used for Ministerial or Party Political statements; that, instead of answering the question, derogatory remarks contravening Standing Orders are sometimes made; and that Ministers should comply with the intention of question time to give Members the important opportunity to have questions answered on behalf of their constituents.
Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It concerns the imputation implied in this matter of public importance against the Speaker - yourself in this case. Mr Speaker, I refer you to page 228 of House of Representatives Practice. It says:
Except in moving dissent from a ruling, the Speaker's actions can only be criticised by a substantive motion usually in the form of censure or want of confidence. It is not acceptable for the Speaker to be criticised incidentally in debate.
Traditionally, a reflection on the character or actions of the Speaker inside or outside the House has been punishable as a breach of privilege ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .