Did any Liberals actually check the upper house standing orders before deciding to rail against changing them? | Kathryn Bermingham

There’s a glaring double standard in the rage from some quarters of the Liberal Party who forgot to do their research, writes Kathryn Bermingham.

The rage from some quarters over the removal of gendered pronouns from the state parliament’s rules of procedure is a glaring double standard — and about 24 years too late.

The changes – which replace he, she, him and her with gender-neutral they, their and them – sparked a huge reaction when they were reported by The Advertiser last week.

Among the majority of those who weighed in, the message was clear. The public do not want members of parliament to be spending their time on gendered pronouns.

Hard to disagree.

There are certainly far more important issues that our state currently faces.

So, how did some Liberals and crossbenchers react?

Did any Liberals actually check the upper house standing orders before deciding to rail against any change to them? Picture: AAP Image/David Mariuz

A month after the changes passed with bipartisan support and minimal fanfare, they became suddenly and passionately committed to the preservation of gendered pronouns.

The changes affected only the lower house, but it did not take long for the focus to shift to the standing orders of their parliamentary upper house colleagues.

The Liberals, who had supported the lower house changes, lined up to declare they would not back a similar motion if it was introduced.

Unfortunately, it seems they were more interested in sound bites than research.

Nicola Centofanti and Dennis Hood made statements publicly, but several of their colleagues privately expressed their opposition.

Over the weekend, the Liberal Women’s Council went so far as to pass a motion calling on the state Liberal opposition to oppose changes to gendered pronouns in the standing orders of both houses of SA parliament.

It begs the question: Did any of these critics actually check the upper house standing orders before deciding to rail against any change to them?

The orders, available on the Legislative Council section of parliament’s website, were last updated at the beginning of last year.

Except for an anomaly in one clause, the pronouns in the standing orders are all already gender neutral terms – they, their and them.

Former South Australian Treasurer Rob Lucas. Picture: Kelly Barnes

What’s more, the changes were made all the way back in 1999 and moved by none other than former Treasurer Rob Lucas.

King Charles and Governor Frances Adamson are also already referred to as “the monarch” and “the governor” – one of the recent, controversial changes to lower house orders.

It took the lower house more than two decades to catch up.

Ms Centofanti said her and Mr Hood’s comments opposing any change were in reference to the handful of pronouns that remain in one clause of the 170-page standing orders.

Opposition Leader David Speirs, who this week marks one year in the job, says the Liberals should not engage in cultural wars, and again outlined his desire to lead a “sensible middle-of-the-road but centre-right party”.

That is where elections are won and lost.

But some colleagues, who claim to speak for the voters who want MPs to “just get on with it”, are stuck debating changes to standing orders that were made last century.

They’d be wise to take their own advice – and maybe have a read through the standing orders.