QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor has refused to be honest with Australians about its plan for new toxic taxes, a lie that the government hid from Australians at the last election. Why doesn't the Prime Minister have the courage to take his toxic taxes to the next election?

The SPEAKER: I'm just going to rule on that. I'm ruling part of the question out regarding the use of the word 'lie', as all Speakers before me have done. The manager on a point of order?

Mr Tehan: On that ruling, on 14 May 2026, you said: I think it's in the best interest for both sides not to be referring to any individuals, people or parties using that term. Later, on 25 May 2026, you allowed a question to be asked of the Prime Minister which (a) contained the word 'lie' and (b) did this with a direct reference to the government. So I just ask: given that that has been allowed previously, why can't we use it again this time?

The SPEAKER: Because I've made it clear to the House subsequent to that, which the member understands. Resume your seat. I'm going to deal with this now.

I've been reflecting on the language used over the last few weeks and, more recently, the vulgar language that has been used during 90-second statements, and I'm going to make my position clear today on this matter. I don't want to allow any ambiguity around permitting accusations of lying in whatever carefully crafted form to continue. It does not support the dignity of this House and all of us as members.

An accusation that a member has lied or deliberately misled is an imputation of an improper motive. This language is unparliamentary and has been ruled by successive Speakers, including when directed at governments or political parties. I have observed, when such accusations have been made in recent sittings, language has led to disruptive and disorderly behaviour in the chamber.

I deem it undesirable from that perspective as well. I want to also address the comments that have been made both in this place and outside of it about occasions when the approach about language has not been followed in a consistent way over the years. I've looked back at previous Speakers' rulings on this matter and the number of times each Speaker has asked a member to withdraw this exact type of words: Speaker Hawker, 10 times; Speaker Jenkins, 40 times; Speaker Slipper, six times; Speaker Burke, nine times; Speaker Bishop, 21; Speaker Smith, 13; and former Speaker Wallace, twice.

So I want to make it very clear, as I've been doing: I intend to treat any accusations of lying as out of order, and I will continue to ask such accusations to be withdrawn and will not allow them as part of the questions. If this behaviour persists, members may find that they lose the call or lose their opportunity to ask a question. I'm following all Speakers before me for the last 40 years in such a way.