Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (22 February) . . Page.. 158 ..

MR KAINE: That is the first time I have ever heard the Assembly defined so narrowly. In fact, if you read standing order 209 - and I would submit that you must take the two standing orders together and not in isolation - it refers to the precincts, and we have had debates before and the precincts of the Assembly have been defined. If the former Speaker is serious in her contention that only this part of this building is the Assembly, the rest of her argument becomes logical; but, of course, that is not logical. So the rest of her argument fails as well because if that is accepted you can have a pitched battle going on where the visitors gallery is. If you take the third part of her motion as being serious, what happens? We sit here and we debate the question of whether the Assembly ought to adjourn and whether we should give you a direction on the matter while there is a pitched battle going on in the gallery or perhaps out in the lobby. That is an absurdity that even Ms McRae must surely acknowledge as being an absurdity. I find the whole thing quite peculiar.

I do not mind the Administration and Procedure Committee looking at the question. Perhaps the word "grave" ought to be removed from the standing order. Then you would not have to define what constitutes grave disorder because you are simply talking about disorder. I think that any member of this Assembly, and particularly the Speaker, is quite competent to decide whether there is a state of disorder in the house or in its precincts. You do not need a definition to tell you what constitutes disorder. Quite frankly, I do not think you need a definition of what constitutes grave disorder either. If people can be so pedantic that they think they need one, and if the Administration and Procedure Committee can come up with a definition of what constitutes grave disorder, I will be interested to see it. Perhaps the word "grave" ought to be removed. Perhaps that is what the Assembly's committee ought to be considering.

I personally would find it quite offensive that we elect a Speaker and then set about telling the Speaker, whose duties are clearly defined, that he cannot act until we have a little debate about whatever is the problem and give him an instruction as to how to act.

Ms McRae: Ha, ha! Look who is talking. For heaven's sake! You spent three years telling me what to do.

MR KAINE: I submit, Mr Speaker, that the person opposite who is laughing yet again would have found it quite offensive if the Assembly had pulled this stunt on her when she was the Speaker. It is very strange how your perspective changes when you have been booted out of the chair and you are no longer in control of the chamber. Now she wants to start changing the standing orders that she thought were fine while they protected her.

Mr Speaker, I did not find the events of yesterday amusing; I do not find them amusing today. I think this is a bizarre motion that is being put to the Assembly. I hope that the members of the Administration and Procedure Committee, since it is clearly going to be referred, will treat it with the attention that it deserves. I will finish on that note.

MS TUCKER (10.56): As a member of the Administration and Procedure Committee, I suppose this is something that I support. I do have some concerns about whether or not you can ask Assembly members to enter the discussion if the situation is as it was yesterday, but I will not say any more. I will wait to see what comes up in the discussion in the Administration and Procedure Committee. Mr Humphries inferred that committees

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .