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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 13 Hansard (Wednesday, 16 November 2011) . . Page.. 5421 ..


Ms Porter: It has not been passed.

Mr Seselja: Thank you, Ms Porter. He is speaking to that amendment. The amendment is about other matters. He is going to other matters. Is your ruling that he is not allowed to go to the substance of his amendment? Is that your ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker?

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: In response to your point of order, Mr Seselja, no, that is not the ruling. The ruling is that Mr Hanson is not permitted to continue his speech, assuming that the amendment that he has moved was successful. It is my ruling that he needs to—

Opposition members interjecting—

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: If the opposition want to hear the explanation, fine, otherwise I will give somebody a holiday. I am not going to put up with it. I am not going to put up with the amount of noise that you gave Ms Le Couteur. I am not putting up with it. So you all are being carefully advised: please watch it. I am trying to give you an explanation. And this is the explanation: there has been an amendment moved, which had not been circulated. The amendment was not addressed by Mr Hanson. He had addressed the extension of his argument, assuming that that amendment had been passed by the house, which it had not, because that amendment had not been put.

So he must address the question as though that amendment had not been put. The argument that he needs to advance is whether or not that amendment should be accepted, not to assume that it had. Mr Hanson, you have the floor, and please abide by that or I invite any of you five members, if you wish to dissent from the ruling, feel free. That is the end of that discussion.

MR HANSON: I move the amendment now circulated in my name.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question is that Mr Hanson’s amendment be agreed to.

MR HANSON: Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. My amendment goes to the point that this is a pattern of behaviour, that this is not an isolated incident. As I was saying before, we have a large number of instances where Simon Corbell has misled the community and has misled this Assembly. And these are cases that have been litigated before. I had got to the point of plastic bags and the jail opening.

We had prisoner lockdowns in April 2010 where the minister went to the media and said there had been no prisoner lockdowns. Remember the incident where prisoners were on the roof? That was proved not to be the case. He said that the jail had capacity for 25 years. It is already full and they are retrofitting with bunk beds. We know that is the case. He said that the jail had a capacity of 300. It does not. It has a capacity of 245. He said that Doug Buchanan left voluntarily, whereas Doug Buchanan, the superintendent of the jail, has disputed that and said that it was not voluntary.


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