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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 10 March 2011) . . Page.. 763 ..

Mr Stanhope: That is my point of order. I just wanted to correct the record—that actually Mr—

MR SPEAKER: All right, thank you. Mr Smyth, you have the floor.

Mr Hanson interjecting—

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Smyth has the floor.

MR SMYTH: If you would let me finish—upon it being brought to your attention that Mr Doszpot had been warned for “grub” when Mr Stanhope had used it often, of course, then Mr Stanhope was called to order but he was not warned. That is the problem here. There is a lack of consistency. That is what we ask for—consistency.

I have raised with you on several occasions, for instance, Mr Hargreaves. I can give you the dates—I have got them written down here—when Mr Hargreaves would deliberately ask questions that you would rule out of order and you would say, “Do not do it or I will warn you.” But he never gets warned. This is the problem. If the Speaker wants to enter the cut and thrust and be part of the ruck and then be the umpire, he runs the risk of being called to order. We will call you to order whenever we want.

It is interesting when you go to House of Representatives Practice. I thank Ms Hunter for referring to standing order 39. Standing order 39 states:

When a Member is speaking, no other Member may converse or make any noise or disturbance to interrupt that Member.

Can you imagine the functioning of this place—

Mr Hanson: Look at those opposite now, Mr Smyth.

Mr Seselja: They are breaching the standing orders.

MR SMYTH: They are in breach of the standing order now while I speak. Ms Hunter is now breaching the standing order that she just brought to the attention of the house. The hypocrisy of Ms Hunter in breaching the standing order that you just gave us a sermon on. You have to put in place practical application of the standing orders. They are not applied fairly and they are not being applied in a practical manner. House of Representatives Practice recognises this. It says at page 511:

The Chair, although recognising all interjections as disorderly, has also been of the opinion that it should not interfere as long as they were short and it did not interrupt the thread of the speech being delivered.

The measure normally is that when the speaker feels that their speech is being impeded, that is when speakers appeal. But that is not how it is applied here. House of Representatives Practice goes on to say:

It may be accepted that, as the House is a place of thrust and parry, the Chair

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