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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4466 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

editorialising from the chair is a matter to be censured or to be the subject of a motion of want of confidence, I think, is extremely poor form and very ungracious, if I might say so, Mr Speaker. I believe that the house ought to have confidence in your ability to continue to chair this place. You have done well under often extremely difficult circumstances. I indicate that the Government, at least, will not be supporting this motion by Mr Whitecross.

MR WOOD (4.32): Mr Speaker, I have no anxiety about the standards of behaviour of this Opposition. When compared with the Opposition that occupied these benches in the last Assembly, the current Opposition is an outstanding model of behaviour.

Mr Osborne: Ha, ha!

Mr Moore: From an unbiased perspective?

MR WOOD: From a personal perspective. Mr Osborne, you were not here. Yes, there are interjections; of course, there are. There are responses, and there is agitation. This is a parliament, after all. I believe that they are well within bounds. Let me tell seven members in this Assembly who were not here in the last Assembly how it was. When I was over there, I sat where Mr Stefaniak is now sitting, with four colleagues there, answering questions every question time. There was from this side of the house - from the Liberals - orchestrated disruption. It was planned, deliberate disruption, and it was a matter of Liberal strategy that it should be.

Mr De Domenico was allocated the task of leading. We know what a good, loud voice he had. At every question time, Mr De Domenico never stopped. That is correct. He had Mrs Carnell right at his shoulder, and she went on and on, hardly a step behind Mr De Domenico. You, Mr Speaker, were a little less noisy than those two colleagues; but you, by any standard today, made more noise than Mr Berry did today. I well remember that, because I, with my colleagues, had to answer questions in the face of a continuous, deliberate, planned barrage of interjections. That was the strategy of the Liberals in opposition.

When they got into government, it changed. They wanted more decorum. They wanted silence from the Opposition. It was instantly recognisable. It became very evident early that there were two standards for the Liberals - the standard when they were in government and the standard when Labor was in government. I was not there and I have had no leaks; but it is absolutely obvious that, after the election, when they became the Government, the Liberals again discussed this matter of strategy. It was to keep interjections and noise to a minimum.

Mr Humphries: We did not succeed, obviously, did we?

MR WOOD: I think it only stirred things on, Mr Humphries. The pressure is there to see. I sit directly opposite the Chief Minister. I can see it. The Speaker can see it. He can see the glares. Let me tell you: The Chief Minister can glare pretty effectively. There is no question about that. I can see the nods. I can see the body language.

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