Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 08 Hansard (Tuesday, 16 August 2011) . . Page.. 3225 ..
uphold the standards of the Speaker, not just in this parliament but in any parliament in the commonwealth.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (12.02): I wish to respond to some of the comments that Mr Corbell made. Mrs Dunne has certainly covered them in part. Mr Corbell essentially now has got this defence, as Mr Seselja pointed out, that it is an alleged offence. Therefore, it is not as important as if it was something for which there had been a conviction. You certainly made comments, Mr Corbell, that there can be—
Mr Corbell interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Corbell! Mr Hanson has the floor. Members, Mr Hanson has the floor.
Mr Corbell interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Corbell, please!
MR HANSON: This is the same Mr Corbell who was found, I think it was with grave concern by this Assembly—
Mr Smyth: Persistent and wilful misleading.
MR HANSON: It was for persistent and wilful misleading. But there was also the case of the prisoners that protested on the roof of the Belconnen Remand Centre. Mr Corbell declared them guilty. The motion was one of grave concern, I think was the term. It was downgraded from a censure.
But the question is: will the government support Mr Seselja’s motion if those members of Greenpeace are found guilty? So if the measure is that it is only an alleged offence and, therefore, what the Speaker said was not so bad, does that mean that if those members are found guilty and Mr Seselja was to bring this motion back before the house, the government would agree to it?
Mr Seselja: It makes sense.
MR HANSON: It would. By Mr Corbell’s logic, he is using that as a defence as to why the government, although they agree and would declare that the Speaker is unwise, are not agreeing with it because it has not gone through the courts and no-one has been found guilty. That is the logical conclusion.
The other thing that has come to my mind—I do not know if Mr Rattenbury is going to be speaking on this motion—is that I just do not understand why he is the Speaker. Why, when we hear what he is saying, when we hear the comments from his Greens colleagues and we have heard about what the role of the Speaker is and what the requirements of the Speaker are, would Mr Rattenbury want to be the Speaker?
I do not understand because we have heard all the way from Mr Rattenbury’s maiden speech where he declared himself a radical. We have seen his career before with Greenpeace. We have seen his actions in this Assembly where he has taken on green