Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 14 Hansard (Wednesday, 8 December 2010) . . Page.. 5973 ..
Mr Smyth: I have a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Smyth?
Mr Smyth: Under standing order 73, I would like your ruling on the words of House of Representatives Practice on page 500:
If there is some uncertainty as to the words complained of, for the sake of clarity,
the Chair may ask exactly what words are being questioned.
I would like to know what exact words Mr Hanson said that have led to his removal from the house.
Mr Corbell: He accused the Chief Minister of being a liar.
Mr Smyth: I want the exact words.
Mr Seselja: No, he didn’t.
Mr Hargreaves: His removal was for not accepting the chair’s ruling.
Mr Seselja: He said what she says was untrue. How many times is that said here?
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, please be quiet. Mr Smyth, the reason for the ruling was not accepting the chair’s ruling. If we are to have a reasoned debate in this Assembly, the rules are quite clear that the chair’s rulings should be accepted, and I trust we can now continue our debate. We were about to have a vote.
Mr Smyth: I would like further guidance then. You said if we were to have a reasoned debate—
Mr Rattenbury: Sit down, Brendan.
Mr Seselja: You are not in the chair now, Shane. You can get in the chair.
Mr Smyth: Mr Hanson asked for exactly—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, is this a point of order?
Mr Smyth: This is a point of order. Mr Hanson asked exactly what words—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: What is the point of order, Mr Smyth?
Mr Smyth: The point of order is clarity. Mr Hanson asked for exactly what words he has to withdraw and I would like to know what words they were, because I have not heard such words that he was asked to withdraw. To be asked to withdraw just vague notions is not compliant with the standing orders and it is not compliant with House of Representatives Practice, and I seek your ruling.