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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2021 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2021) . . Page.. 1507 ..


There is then the issue of the Privacy Act. I cannot possibly see how that could have been engaged. I cannot see how that possibly can be engaged.

However, another great act that the Speaker has done by trying to trample all over independent bodies is to refer to media articles that this is based on. The person, who I note is a former political candidate, a member of the Greens, has referred this matter to the Information Commissioner. It said in the article that this matter has been referred to the Information Commissioner. So let us go trampling all over that independent process as well, shall we? Not just the Standards Commissioner that this has been referred to, the Information Commissioner that this has been referred to, but no, Ms Burch wants to be conducting our own kangaroo court, her own independent investigation—

Ms Lawder: Judge and jury.

MR HANSON: Judge and jury, yes, Ms Lawder, well said. There is no breach of the Privacy Act. They are going to get looked at by the commissioner. There is clearly nothing that engages the Electoral Act. It has been referred to the Commissioner for Standards. What is the intent of this, other than this smear and trawl for information that we have seen?

I hope that Mr Rattenbury, as the Leader of the Greens and a former Speaker, will see this for what it is. There are plenty of opportunities if he wants to get involved in scraps with the Liberal Party, if that is what he wants to do. But I hope that he has not gone that far and the Greens have not gone so far that they will trample all over the independence of the standards commissioner, trample all over the independence of the Information Commissioner, in order to score these pretty tawdry, cheap, political points.

I would also ask what on earth is the Speaker doing moving this motion?

Mr Rattenbury: On a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker, Mr Hanson has now made a number of comments on the motives of the Speaker. And he looks like he is about to go there again. It is quite clear from the Companion to the standing orders that members are not to reflect on the conduct or decision-making or motives of the Speaker without moving a substantive motion. So I ask you to be mindful of this as Mr Hanson continues with his remarks, because I think he is skating quite close to and, in fact, probably has already crossed the line.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Pettersson): Thank you, Mr Rattenbury. Mr Hanson, I think Mr Rattenbury has a good point. If you could please reflect on the words.

MR HANSON: I am happy to do so. But, of course, the confusion comes from the fact that we do not know whether this is being actually moved by Ms Burch as the Speaker or—

Mr Steel: On a point of order, it is very clear in standing order 55 that all imputations of improper motives on members, not just the Speaker but all members, shall be


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