Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 17 March 2010) . . Page.. 1026 ..


MR HANSON: Madam Assistant Speaker, on the point of order, standing orders say that there is no time limit, so while I acknowledge Mr Hargreaves’s concerns, under standing orders, there is no—

Mr Barr: You did say a short statement, Jeremy, though, and that was the basis on which leave was given.

MR HANSON: Well, I consider “short” to be anything less than an hour, Mr Barr.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): Mr Hanson, you are correct about the standing order not having a time limit, but you did say “brief”, and I would ask that you be brief on this. I would not define an hour as “brief”.

MR HANSON: Madam Assistant Speaker, if I had fewer interjections from the crossbench and the government benches, I am sure I could be brief. The University of Canberra hosted a drugs and driving forum.

Mr Rattenbury: On a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, I would like to move for a suspension of standing orders to allow the Assembly to put a time limit on Mr Hanson’s speech.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Rattenbury.

MR HANSON: This is going to take longer than my speech, you doofus.

Mr Rattenbury: You just told us it might take up to an hour, Mr Hanson, so what are we supposed to do?

MR HANSON: No, I said anything less than an hour. Come on, that is going to be another debate, and I will not go short on that one, Mr Rattenbury.

Mr Barr: Sorry, are you going to stop now?

MR HANSON: No. I said I am not going to go short, if we are having a debate about suspending standing orders.

Mr Rattenbury: I am prepared to enter into negotiation, if Mr Hanson gives some indication that he is not going to keep going for too much longer.

Mr Smyth: On the point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, this is ridiculous. Never, ever, in my time in this place, have we sought to do this. It is outrageous that we would give a member leave to speak and then, because we do not like what he is saying, seek to do this. We do not do it to ministers. Ministers get leave to make statements. We do not do it to ministers. It is entirely appropriate that when this place has given a member the right to speak on a subject that he or she chooses to speak about, we hear that person in silence. As Mr Hanson pointed out, if there were fewer interjections, he would get through it far quicker than he is doing at the moment. If people want to have a debate about it, that is fine, but it is just ridiculous that we change the rules—


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video