In a unique aspect of Australian political culture, certain phrases and words deemed insulting or inappropriate have been banned from parliamentary discussions. This practice, known as identifying “unparliamentary language,” has gained attention as members of the Queensland Parliament have faced requests to withdraw comments that include terms like “slipperier than an eel in a bucket of snot” and “big fat bag of wind.” Such regulations aim to maintain the dignity of parliamentary proceedings.
The role of determining what constitutes unparliamentary language falls to the Speaker of the House. The individual presiding over discussions decides whether specific comments are inappropriate, requiring the member who made the remark to retract it. This discretion can lead to variations in rulings, as noted by University of Queensland research fellow Sam Hames. He explained that the interpretation can differ between speakers, resulting in inconsistent applications of the rules over time.
Jim Fouras, a former acting speaker, noted in 2005 that there is “no exhaustive list” of banned language, as the definition can be quite subjective. Generally, any expression deemed unworthy of the House’s dignity falls into this category. Over the years, a variety of phrases have been ruled out of order, including “ranting ratbag,” “mob of shysters,” and “political loafer.”
In a notable instance from late 2022, Julian Hill, the federal MP for Bruce, referred to opposition members as “bin chickens,” which was subsequently ruled unparliamentary by Deputy Speaker Maria Vamvakinou. Hill remarked, “We’ve heard the blather and the noise from the bin chickens over there,” before withdrawing the comment. Hames pointed out that the usage of such terms can vary significantly based on context and speaker perception.
Attempts at creative usage of language have also occurred. During a budget debate in 2018, then-Whitsunday MP Jason Costigan declared his willingness to “drop the c-word,” which he clarified referred to coal. Following his statement, then-deputy speaker Joe Kelly cautioned members against using euphemisms, insisting they should refer to coal directly.
Historical records indicate that derogatory terms have been part of Queensland parliamentary discourse since the 1800s. The ABC examined the Hansard, the official transcript of debates, revealing that phrases considered unparliamentary have evolved alongside societal changes. Hames noted that early parliamentary language often included racially charged and derogatory terms that would now certainly be deemed unacceptable.
An interesting case involved Vaughan Johnson, a Central Queensland MP, who declared during a legislative debate that he spoke “like bloody hell!” This prompted a response from then-deputy speaker Verity Barton, who informed Johnson that he had likely used unparliamentary language. Despite his insistence that it was simply his manner of speaking, he ultimately agreed to withdraw the comment.
The ongoing discussion around language in the Queensland Parliament reflects broader societal shifts and highlights the importance of maintaining decorum in political discourse. According to Hames, language considered unparliamentary has changed significantly, now reflecting contemporary standards of respect and propriety in public debate.
