Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 24 February 2010) . . Page.. 553 ..
you should look at your own house and get it in order first, because you are the ones that have broken the principles of committee appointments before this time—clearly, I suspect, you will do so again—even though there are members on the Labor Party backbench who are quite able to be appointed to the committee.
The question is: why would the government appoint Mr Barr against the Companion to the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory and against what has occurred in this place for a long, long time? That is a question for them to answer, and perhaps they will do the right thing and withdraw the minister. It will be interesting to see. I suspect they will not. I suspect this is hypocrisy. This is about muddying the waters. This is exactly the same tactic Mr Corbell adopted last time when the issue of privilege came up in this place. Under what standing order—
Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I fear that Mr Smyth may be reflecting somewhat on the statement that you made. It is not the government that has raised this issue; it is you, Mr Speaker. Perhaps this is a somewhat vague area and perhaps this is not formally a ruling on your part; nevertheless, reflections on the chair are grossly disorderly. To suggest that this is driven by the government ignores the fact that you have made a statement drawing this problem to the Assembly’s attention.
Mr Hanson: Mr Speaker, on the point of order, this is not a point of order; this is a debating point.
Mr Hargreaves: No, it’s not; it’s about reflections on the chair.
MR SPEAKER: I actually believe—
Mr Seselja: What’s a reflection on the chair? What words?
MR SPEAKER: Order! In response to you, Mr Hanson, I think Mr Corbell actually has a standing order under which he is raising a point of order.
Mr Smyth: The member is meant to quote the number.
MR SPEAKER: Well, if you want to start applying that rule, Mr Smyth, we are going to have some very long days while members flip through the standing orders.
Mr Seselja: Perhaps, Mr Speaker, I could assist. Perhaps Mr Corbell could actually point to the words that are a reflection—
MR SPEAKER: I am in the middle of ruling, Mr Seselja. Whilst I think Mr Corbell has raised a point of order that comes under the standing orders, I do not think Mr Smyth was seeking to reflect on my statement. My impression was that he did not intend to, and I am sure he will make sure he does not from this point on. Mr Smyth.
MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, thank you for the words. I am not sure what standing order that was raised under, and somebody like Mr Corbell, who has been here the longest of all of us, knows the rules. When a member is having a point of order taken against them, you are actually meant to quote the rules so that you know what standing order to make the judgement against.