Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 23 March 2010) . . Page.. 1255 ..
MR HANSON: What do you think dissent is, you buffoon?
MR SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, “buffoon” is not parliamentary language.
MR HANSON: I think “buffoon” is parliamentary language. He thinks “prat” is parliamentary language. He was using it to argue a case—
MR SPEAKER: Come on, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: All right; I withdraw. Mr Speaker, let me just go to your discussion in the public domain of the parliamentary agreement. In your role as the Speaker, representing this Assembly as the Speaker, you went to Kiribati—correct me if I have got the pronunciation wrong—
MR SPEAKER: That is correct, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: I notice that on the agenda there was a speech by Mr Rattenbury on the parliamentary agreement and the effect on the operation of the ACT Legislative Assembly. I would dearly love to listen to that speech. But when you went to Kiribati, Mr Speaker, did you represent us as the Speaker or—I am sorry and we are wrong—did you actually go as the Greens’ representative? Did you go there representing the Greens? Let me tell you: let us find out how much—
Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, dissent from the Speaker’s ruling is not an opportunity to basically place a whole range of matters on the floor of this place that go to your motivations as the Speaker of this place. If the Liberal Party are so dissatisfied with your performance as Speaker, let them have the courage to move want of confidence in you as Speaker, because that is essentially what Mr Hanson is saying today. He is saying that you are representing this parliament in other parliaments and you are using it for base political purposes. They are accusing you of a whole range of matters that go well beyond your interpretation of the standing orders. It is not relevant to the debate and Mr Hanson should be asked to remain relevant in this debate.
Mr Seselja: On the point of order, there are two points. I refer you to Mr Corbell’s comments the last time there was dissent from one of your rulings and the broad-ranging nature of his personal attack on you, which went far beyond anything which has been said here today. The second point is that Mr Hanson’s point is: if there is no official status to the Greens-Labor agreement, the very issue we are debating, then why, in your role as Speaker, are you advocating for the Greens-Labor agreement—
Mr Corbell: How is that relevant?
Mr Seselja: Because that is what we are debating. We are debating the status of the Greens-Labor agreement. It is reasonable on both counts. Mr Corbell made far worse attacks when speaking to his dissent motion some time ago. Mr Hanson is being relevant by drawing the attention of the Assembly to the status of the Greens-Labor agreement and how it has been advocated by you in representing this parliament.