Parliamentary Procedure

Personal Explanations

The SPEAKER (11:02): I gather that the Attorney wishes to make a personal explanation. I do not wish to trump him, but I do have a statement to make about personal explanations generally, because during the last sittings the member for Schubert made a personal explanation for which he was granted leave, without my asking him if he had been misrepresented. Then as is, alas, the custom he shook some curry onto his tormentor and then the member for Wright arose to make a personal explanation also and, in order to forestall a quarrel, I asked the member for Wright if she claimed to be misrepresented, and she makes the point that I treated her unequally because I did not ask the member for Schubert if he claimed to be misrepresented.

I have asked the Clerk for some advice on personal explanations, and this is it: a personal explanation is a statement by a member explaining a matter of a personal nature. It is not part of debate on a question, although it may arise out of matters raised or mentioned in debate. A personal explanation is not made as of right. In the House of Assembly, pursuant to standing order 108, a personal explanation is made only by leave of the house. This standing order has essentially remained unchanged since its inclusion in the House of Assembly standing orders as early as 1869.

The practice surrounding personal explanations in the House of Assembly differs from the practice of the House of Commons, Westminster, or the House of Representatives, Commonwealth of Australia, where a personal statement is made on leave indulgence of the Speaker.

A personal explanation is designed to enable a member to explain to the house matters of a personal nature that reflect on the honour or integrity of the member or otherwise of some emotional import to the member. More often than not, a personal explanation generally claims misrepresentation arising from media reports, the preceding question time or debate—or, indeed, from a minister perhaps making an inadvertent mistake in the course of the same, I should add.

In the House of Assembly, there has been a practice that a member, on rising to make a personal explanation, addresses the house by stating, 'I claim that I have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation.' Such a statement makes it clear to the house the reason for requesting the permission of the house to make a personal explanation. Although I have been unable to find specific examples referenced in Hansard of a Speaker querying a member as to the nature of the personal explanation, it is clear, however, that any request to the house by a member seeking leave to make a personal explanation should be accompanied by more than a simple request saying, 'I seek leave to make a personal explanation.' In order that the members can judge the merit of the request when they are asked to grant leave for a member to make a personal explanation, the member requesting leave is expected to indicate broadly to the house when seeking its authority with what the personal explanation is concerned.

Obviously, any indication should go no further than to apprise the house of the basis of the request. I note that in House of Representatives Guide to Procedures, there is an established practice for the Chair to ask a member on rising to make a personal explanation whether he or she is claiming to be misrepresented. In order to grant the request, unanimous leave of all members present in the house is required. If there is any dissent, leave is declined.

It is an established practice of the House of Assembly that, on leave being unanimously granted, whether it be for either a personal explanation pursuant to standing order 108 or pursuant to standing order 97, for a member to offer any facts to explain a question, withdrawal of leave requires only one member subsequently to withdraw his or her leave. When an individual member withdraws leave, there is no opportunity to question the member's motive for withdrawing leave or for the Speaker to rule on the appropriateness of such an action.

Where a member makes a comment in a personal explanation that is impermissible or misuses the privilege (or, I should add, tends towards a quarrel), a member may raise a point of order or the Speaker will intervene and, ultimately, in fulfilling his or her role in maintaining order, terminate the personal explanation. In these circumstances, the Speaker has advised the house that he is withdrawing leave and on other occasions the Speaker has directed a member to resume his or her seat during the course of the personal explanation.

Where the Speaker has curtailed a personal explanation, for whatever reason, whether by withdrawing leave or directing the member to resume his or her seat during the course of an explanation, there is no provision for the member to move a motion of dissent from the Speaker's ruling, as there is no ruling. So, the practice that I applied in a discriminatory and prejudicial way to the member for Wright will now be the norm. The Attorney-General.