Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:45): Deputy Speaker, I have a question for you in relation to some rulings over the last two days. Today I took a couple of points of order, as did other members on our side under standing order 90 and also under standing order 92(b). Standing order 90, in particular, says: All imputations of improper motives … shall be considered highly disorderly. We took a point of order on the basis— Mr Albanese interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Leader of the House! Mr Randall: Will you stop him interjecting all the time? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Canning will stop this annoying chitchat over the table. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is raising a very important point and I think she should be heard in silence. Ms JULIE BISHOP: I maintained, and other members maintained, that where the Prime Minister and other ministers repeatedly perpetuated a falsity, that was highly disorderly. You, Deputy Speaker, said in those circumstances under section 90 there are other forms or other means by which this can be dealt with in the House—meaning, presumably, personal explanations and the like. However, under standing order 92(ii), 'when a member’s conduct is considered offensive or disorderly' the Speaker is able to intervene, if the Speaker does consider that the conduct was 'offensive or disorderly'. In this case, that conduct was the Prime Minister continually making false claims about coalition policies. Standing order 94 includes sanctions against disorderly conduct, of which the Deputy Speaker is well aware. My question, Deputy Speaker, for clarity, is the interaction between standing order 90, about 'highly disorderly' conduct and where the Speaker should intervene when the conduct is 'offensive or disorderly'. I would ask if you would advise me, and, through that, other members on our side, as to the process in these matters. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (15:47): I, like her, have been in this place for a long time and it is very difficult for the chair to determine what other people consider an untruth from either side of the parliament. The difficulty the chair has is that it is about the perception of the individuals. House of Representatives Practice on page 499 reads: Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate. It is difficult to therefore rule something in or out of order, and I actually have not made any deliberative rulings in the last six weeks I have been in the chair. The Leader of the House wants to speak to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's point. Mr Albanese: I note the legitimate point that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes regarding imputations that are made against members, but I would ask that perhaps the opposition consider the nature of the questions that are being asked and whether indeed they are absolutely contrary to standing order 90 in that a majority of them end or begin with a personal criticism of the Prime Minister which contains an imputation of an improper motive. That is what their questions do from question 1 to question 10 every single day.