Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (3.30 p.m.) —Mr Speaker, I feel compelled to seek to make a personal explanation on the basis of the Attorney-General's last comment.
The SPEAKER —Let me point out to the member for Barton that I did listen closely to what the Attorney was saying. I will allow him on indulgence to make a comment, but I do not believe there is any matter of misrepresentation, because I listened closely to the Attorney's remarks and I did not believe that in his remarks he in any way imputed improper motives to the member for Barton. In accommodation of the member for Barton, whose adherence to the standing orders is an example all could follow, I will grant him indulgence.
Mr McCLELLAND —Thank you, Mr Speaker. On indulgence, I construed the Attorney's statement as imputing that I used the contents of the briefing for the purpose of formulating questions. I can assure the Attorney-General that I did no such thing and, again, I regard that imputation as offensive.
The SPEAKER —I reassure the member for Barton that I did listen closely to the Attorney's comments and I did not believe that a personal explanation was justified.
Mr Abbott —Papers are tabled—
Mr Tanner —Sit down, Tony! Wait your turn.
The SPEAKER —I warn the member for Melbourne!
Mr Abbott —Papers are tabled in accordance with—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat. Papers are not tabled. I had recognised the Leader of the House, as I have recognised other members, on the presumption that he was dealing with the matter before the chair. I will recognise the tabling of papers at an appropriate time.
Mr Stephen Smith —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is on the same matter. The member for Barton said he regarded the comments by the Attorney as offensive—
The SPEAKER —The member for Perth must be aware that by any measure the chair has been exceedingly tolerant—
Mr Stephen Smith —It is a point of order!
The SPEAKER —I have to invite the member for Perth to indicate which standing order has been affronted or to seek some other way of getting the call.
Mr Stephen Smith —My point of order is in respect of the practice of the House whereby, if a member says he is offended by a remark, the person who made the offending remark ought to withdraw it. The Attorney-General said he made the remark, and he denied that his imputation was deliberate. My point of order is this: whether the imputation made by the Attorney-General was innocent, negligent or fraudulent, it was offensive and he should withdraw it.
The SPEAKER —The member for Perth ought to be aware that not only when the question was asked but also during the Attorney-General's reply I wondered whether there was an imputation in it—I even consulted the Clerk about the matter—and I believe that the matter has been well and truly aired and dealt with.