STATEMENTS
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (15:12): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Ms STEGGALL: I have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister.
The SPEAKER: You may proceed. Ms STEGGALL: The first allegation the Prime Minister made was that there was no reporting of personal staff allocations to crossbenchers in the Morrison government. That is incorrect.
The SPEAKER: No, it's not about allegations. You need to state to the House what the misrepresentation was—not an interpretation of the words but exactly what the words were. Then explain to the House how you were misrepresented.
Ms STEGGALL: The Prime Minister's words were: Not only did the Morrison government not report that or come to the dispatch box; they were pretty quiet up in that corner about it too. Mr Speaker, those figures are reported at Senate estimates every time. There was no nondisclosure.
The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. I'll deal with this. I've been through this a number of times.
When you are claiming misrepresentation, you need to state clearly where or who or what has been said in an article or in a speech. Collectively, you can't take an objection. You're saying that the Prime Minister said something that was reported elsewhere.
That's not a misrepresentation. That's a debating point that you're trying to make. I'll give the member the call.
Ms STEGGALL: So the Prime Minister can make a general allegation grouping people together, but when I am included in that, I can't individually take that as misrepresentation. Is that the speaker's ruling? The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House.
Mr Burke: To contribute to the point of order—yes, that's what members of parties deal with every single day and always have. The SPEAKER: Just resume your seat for a moment. We'll get through this and I'll give you the call.
Collectively—yes, that is correct. That is my ruling. If a member were to suggest something—or a political party or political organisation—we would be here all day for every single member of that party or government to take offence and to say 'That's misleading,' or whatever their claim was.
If the Prime Minister or any minister or any member had said 'the person said about me', and the words aren't correct, you could correct and use the form of the House for that. Does the member now wish to make another personal explanation? Ms STEGGALL: I would like to conclude this point though.
I am an independent; I am not a member of a party. As such— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Members on my left will show restraint and show the member for Warringah respect. Ms STEGGALL: As such, even though it is put in a grouping, it is under the rules allowable for me to ask to make a personal explanation if I have been misrepresented.
The SPEAKER: Yes. But the key is in the term 'personal representation', so it's about the person. Anyway, we shall— Ms STEGGALL: I will write to the Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the House wish to contribute? Mr Burke: The answer, as I'd say in a point of order, is contained in the standing order itself—in 68—where it says specifically that there has to be a matter 'of a personal nature'. That's the reason that anything generalised is not able to access this standing order.
Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! No, we're not going to have that sort of behaviour. People are entitled to raise without any commentary or associated noises.
It's not fair and it's not respectful, and it's not the spirit that I want this House to operate under. The member for Warringah on a second personal explanation. Do you claim to have been misrepresented?