Chapter 10 - Debate
Quotation
of documents
A senator may quote documents during a speech, and for that purpose may
read from documents.
A statement by a senator that a document is confidential does not prevent
another senator quoting it (ruling of Acting Deputy President Giles, 17/6/1992, J.2473).
In quoting a document, a senator is not permitted to utter words which
would not be permitted under the rules of debate if uttered in the normal
course of speaking. For example, if a document uses offensive words in
relation to another senator which would not be permitted under standing order 193(3) if uttered in
debate, the senator may not read those words from the document.
This principle was the subject of debate in 1979 when it was applied by
a ruling by the chair. The Privileges
Committee and the Standing Orders Committee were each required
to report upon the principle, and both supported it as a sound principle
(Committee of Privileges, 4th report, Quotation of Unparliamentary
Language in Debate, 20 September 1979, PP 214/1979; Standing Orders Committee, 5th
Report of 59th Session, 31 March 1980, PP 50/1980; statement by
President Reid, SD, 10/8/1999, p.7112; see also statement by President
Calvert, SD, 17/10/2006, p. 36). This principle ensures that senators cannot
circumvent the rules of debate simply by quoting documents.
The principle applies even to Senate
committee reports. A committee should not allow disorderly expressions to
appear in a report, but if this occurs it is not in order to quote the expressions
in debate (statements by President Calvert, SD, 11/11/2002, p. 5878; 3/8/2004, pp 25361-2).
The right of a
senator to quote a document is subject to the right of the Senate to require
the production of the document, and a special procedure is provided to enforce
the latter right.
When a senator quotes a document, another senator, at the conclusion of
the speech, may move a motion without notice that the document be produced. A minister who has
quoted a document may state that the document is of a confidential nature, in
which case the motion for its production cannot be moved (SO 168(1)). Because a
minister may prevent a motion for the tabling of a quoted document by claiming
confidentiality, in practice senators do not move motions in relation to
documents quoted by ministers but ask ministers to table quoted documents. A
senator who is not a minister, however, does not have this exemption, and if a
motion for the tabling of a document quoted by a senator is agreed to the
senator is required to table the document.
The interpretation
of these provisions was twice considered by the Standing Orders Committee. In a
report in 1983 the committee considered the question whether the passage of a
motion requires the tabling of a document not actually in the possession of the
senator who has quoted it. There were conflicting precedents. The committee
observed in relation to these precedents:
Each of the two interpretations of the
procedure under the Standing Order involves difficulties. If the procedure
requires the tabling only of documents actually in the immediate possession of
a Senator, the intention of the Standing Order, that a Senator may be required
by the Senate to produce a document which he purports to quote, so that the
accuracy and context of the quotation may be ascertained, may be frustrated by
a Senator simply leaving outside the Chamber any document which he wishes to
quote. On the other hand, if the procedure requires the tabling of the original
document regardless of whether the Senator has it in his immediate possession,
a Senator is prevented from quoting anything unless he can bring it to the
Chamber with him and be able and willing to table it, however voluminous,
difficult to produce or confidential it may be.
The committee concluded:
On balance, it would seem that the
better interpretation, in spite of the precedents referred to, is that the
procedure requires the tabling only of the document actually in the Senator’s
immediate possession, which means that if the quotation is contained in speech
notes or a copy of the original document, it is those notes or that copy which
should be tabled, and that if the Senator is quoting by memory, he is clearly
unable to comply with the order of the Senate that the document be tabled. If
other Senators consider that a Senator may be making unfair or improper use of quotations
from a document which he is not willing to produce, or misrepresenting the
contents of a document without giving the Senate an opportunity to check the
quotation, these are matters which may be raised in debate.
The committee recommends that the Standing
Order be so interpreted in future. (2nd Report, 61st Session,
20 October 1983, PP 111/1983)
The committee’s recommendation has been followed in interpreting the
standing order.
In a subsequent report the committee examined the standing order in relation
to the tabling of documents quoted by ministers and rulings under the standing
order, and concluded:
Those rulings and the terms of the
Standing Order clearly indicate that it is intended to apply only to a document
relating to public affairs which is actually quoted by a Minister in the course
of the Minister’s remarks, and has no application to speech notes used by a
Minister. The Committee has advised Mr President to rule accordingly. (1st
Report, 62nd Session, 14 November 1985,
PP 504/1985)
This advice also has been followed, although ministers asked to table
documents from which they have quoted often table briefing notes or speech
notes.
A motion for the tabling of a quoted document may be debated, but the
rule of relevance (see below) applies, so that the debate is confined to the
question of whether the document should be tabled.
An order to table a document refers to the whole of the document in the
possession of the senator (ruling of President Laucke, SD, 7/9/1977, pp 635-42).
The chair has no responsibility to judge the accuracy or correctness of
a document tabled (ruling of President Laucke, SD, 19/5/1976, p. 1728).
Motions for the tabling of quoted documents may be moved in committee
of the whole, under the rule that procedure in committee of the whole is the
same as in the Senate (SO 144(7)).
Previous page | Contents | Next page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 31 July 2009 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
