View
220
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/3/2019 To Tweet About Mr Speaker or Not to Tweet
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/to-tweet-about-mr-speaker-or-not-to-tweet 1/4
To tweet about Mr Speaker, or not to tweet?
Jeremy Travers, Thursday 10 November, 2011.
Yesterday in the Victorian Legislative Assembly, we saw a bit of controversy as Speaker Ken
Smith demanded an apology from a Labor MP over a tweet that reflected on his position as
Speaker the previous day.
Martin Foley, the member for Albert Park, tweeted:
speaker smith new low in abandoning any parliamentary standards in #springst by allowing
sneaky Libs/Nats avoid scrunity on #RyanTilleygate
The first six pages of yesterday’s proof Hansard feature the Speaker demanding an apology
for the tweet and points of order, claiming that this would be a dangerous precedent for
Speakers to take, as the tweet was not made inside the chamber. Respectfully, I mustdisagree that the precedent would be dangerous.
In the parliamentary context, there are two issues that must be considered: firstly, did this
tweet constitute a reflection on the Speaker’s performance? And secondly, what is the
appropriate penalty for such a reflection?
I believe that the tweet itself constituted a reflection on the Chair. There is some debate as
to whether or not parliamentary sanctions can be applied for this tweet. In my view, there is
no difference between this tweet and comments that members of Parliament make in the
press that are equally critical of the Speaker’s performance. A publication by the New South
Wales Legislative Assembly, entitled Decisions from the Chair , provide rulings by Speakers
about reflections on the Chair in the press. Mr Speaker Clyne and Mr Speaker Kelly both
ruled in 1943 and 1984 respectfully that “maligning the Speaker through the press was
unchivalrous and a violation of the traditions of parliamentary procedure”.
From a federal perspective, House of Representatives Practice provides the reader with
examples of the Speaker’s actions being criticised by members in the press and the
Speaker’s (and in some cases, the House’s) reactions to each of those reflections. I will
provide three more recent examples of these cases. This information is taken from pages
196-197 of the Practice.
In February 1987, Madam Speaker Child informed the House that she had become aware of
reported remarks critical of her by Wilson Tuckey following his suspension from Parliament
the previous day. Although Mr Tuckey offered an apology in writing, the Speaker gave
precedence to the matter under the standing order relating to privilege. The Leader of the
House then moved a motion in the following words:
That this House finds that remarks made by the honourable member for O'Connor yesterday
are a serious reflection on the character of the Speaker; contain an accusation of partiality in
8/3/2019 To Tweet About Mr Speaker or Not to Tweet
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/to-tweet-about-mr-speaker-or-not-to-tweet 2/4
the discharge of her duty, and therefore constitute a contempt of the House; and suspends
the honourable member for O'Connor from the service of the House for seven sitting days,
including today.
After debate, the motion was agreed to with the House dividing: 77 ayes to 60 noes.
[Hansard , 24.2.1987, p. 580-7]
In August 1986, Madam Speaker Child informed the House that she was made aware of
reported remarks made by Ian Sinclair, then Leader of the National Party, in connection with
the custody of documents in possession of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry which
were to be placed in the custody of the Speaker and the President of the Senate. Upon
request from the Speaker, Mr Sinclair apologised. He further explained that the remarks
were not meant to be about the Speaker but about Parliament itself and his view that
Parliament was an unsuitable repository for documents containing unresolved allegations.
On 16 September, the Speaker again referred to the matter. She had examined the
transcript of Mr Sinclair’s remarks and the statement he made to the House on 22 August
and was convinced that Mr Sinclair’s remarks constituted a “breach of the privileges” of the
House and that the subsequent apology constituted a contempt. After Mr Sinclair addressed
the House, the Deputy Speaker moved a censure motion in Mr Sinclair. The motion was
withdrawn by leave of the House after Mr Sinclair acknowledged his remarks, withdrew
them and apologised again.
And lastly, in October 1990, Mr Speaker McLeay made a statement in relation to remarks
reportedly made by an MP outside the House which amounted to a reflection on the Chair.
The concerned member withdrew the reflection and apologised to the Speaker.
So, it is well known that in Westminster parliaments, Speakers take reflections on their
performance and conduct seriously, whether the remarks were made in Parliament or
outside Parliament.
Yesterday, Mr Speaker Smith drew the attention of the Legislative Assembly to the tweet
and asked for an apology. He did not mention the specific tweet, stating that he did not wish
to have it recorded in Hansard . The Speaker was within his rights to ask for an apology;given the fact that he concluded that it was offensive to him and his position as Speaker. In
other words, it was a reflection on him as Speaker.
I found out about the incident, ironically, via Twitter. The ABC’s Josie Taylor posed an
interesting question by asking:
Does this mean the media can't scrutinise/criticise speaker ken smiths behaviour on twitter?
Or js mps? #springst
I replied:
8/3/2019 To Tweet About Mr Speaker or Not to Tweet
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/to-tweet-about-mr-speaker-or-not-to-tweet 3/4
@josietaylor Not sure about journalists, but the Speaker's actions can't be criticised apart
from a dissent motion or no-confidence motion.
There is a precedent in House of Representatives Practice (on page 196) where on 15 May
1964, a radio journalist during a broadcast accused Mr Speaker McLeay (different from the
Mr Speaker McLeay in the 1990 example above) of partiality in his duties and suggested that
he ‘analyse the word “impartiality” before the next sittings’. The Speaker found that the
remarks were a grave reflection on his character. It was determined that, as the winter
break was approaching at the end of that day, a reference to the Committee on Privileges
would be unsatisfactory.
It was decided that more immediate action should be taken—unless a complete and full
apology and retraction were made over the same broadcasting stations, the journalist’s
press pass should be withdrawn and, with the concurrence of the President of the Senate,
the journalist should be denied admittance. The Speaker summoned the journalist to his
office and the journalist admitted his mistake and the seriousness of his offence. The
journalist was informed that a breach of privilege could have been committed by the
broadcasting stations and he requested the Speaker not to press the matter in relation to
the stations and that the journalist himself was to blame. The journalist agreed to broadcast
a retraction and apology that night and to be repeated the following morning, following the
clearance of the script with the Speaker.
As that was in 1964, I am not sure how Speakers would deal with such statements if they
were made on television, radio and social media today. Some might argue that the Speakershould take appropriate action as to protect his office while others might argue that any
interference from the Speaker might constitute censorship. My own personal view is that
this matter should be examined on a case by case basis. But it is unclear what action, if any,
could be taken against a journalist who is not part of the parliamentary press gallery.
In my response to Ms Taylor (on Twitter, as quoted above), I stated that the Speaker’s
actions can’t be criticised apart from a dissent motion or a motion of no -confidence. The
shadow parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, Colin Brooks MP, tweeted
the following in response to my tweet:
@JeremyTravers @josietaylor that's right for MPs in the chamber but what about comments
made outside parliament?
In my response, consisting of two tweets due to the 140 character limit, I said that I was not
sure of the Victorian practice but there was a case (in the 1980’s) that I remember in the
New South Wales Legislative Assembly where the Speaker demanded the withdrawal of
remarks that a member had made about the Speaker’s conduct via the press.
In terms of the second question I posed earlier, as to what the appropriate penalty could be
for reflecting on the Chair, I am of the view that the penalty should reflect the nature of the
8/3/2019 To Tweet About Mr Speaker or Not to Tweet
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/to-tweet-about-mr-speaker-or-not-to-tweet 4/4
offence. Most of the time, the Speaker would call for the reflection to be withdrawn and an
apology to be made. That is reasonable in majority of cases where the Speaker has been
reflected on. If the member refuses to apologise and withdraw, the Speaker is entitled to
have that member removed from the Chamber for a period of time defined by the standing
orders or name the member for refusing to obey an instruction by the Speaker. Naming amember has the effect of suspending that member for 24 hours.
As I wrote earlier, I am of the view that there is no difference between a remark made by a
member on Twitter that is critical of the Speaker and a statement by a member in the press
that is equally critical. At the same time, I believe that the Standing Orders Committee
needs to examine the use of Twitter by members of Parliament inside the Chamber.
Having examined the first six pages of the Hansard proof, there seems to be a suggestion
that it was more appropriate to raise this matter in private as opposed to it being raised in
Parliament. I believe that the Speaker was quite right to raise the matter in Parliament for
two reasons: firstly, because under the Westminster system, the Speaker cannot defend
himself anywhere else but the House itself; and secondly, it establishes a precedent on the
use of social media by members to criticise the Speaker.
At the end of the day, the tweet by Mr Foley constituted a reflection on the Chair and an
apology should have been given. There are parliamentary ways of dealing with the Speaker’s
performance and conduct—such as a dissent motion, a censure motion and a no-confidence
motion. While these motions are likely to be defeated on party lines, these motions at least
provide an opportunity to be debated. I look forward to the recommendations of theStanding Orders Committee on this matter.
Recommended