Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2008 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 13 February 2008) . . Page.. 177 ..
May and House of Representatives Practice, that all of those things will point to an accusation that someone has misled the Assembly, which is of a different order and must be accompanied by a substantive motion. So could I ask you to reflect upon that ruling and see whether it is consistent with rulings in the past.
MR SPEAKER: As I said to Mr Seselja, I have to judge the atmospherics of these things from time to time. I guess it is my view that that counts when it comes to a judgement about a standing order. In my view there was an accusation bound up in what he said. That is a matter of judgement for me. I think there was an imputation and that is why I ordered it withdrawn.
For example, though, if Mr Pratt had said, “Isn’t it misleading to say such things,” that would be a different matter. But my judgement was that there was an accusation bound up in the way the question was put, and it was a judgement of the atmospherics. And that is the way I will continue to judge these matters. I must make a judgement about whether it leads to further disorder as well, and those are the reasonings behind my decision in that case.
Education—school language programs
Dr Foskey: I believe I am rising both to speak to the amendment and to close the debate.
MR SPEAKER: You are speaking to the amendment.
Dr Foskey: I am speaking to the amendment then.
MR SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
I am not sure whether there are other members who wish to speak on the matter. Are there other members that wish to speak on this?
Mr Barr: I will be speaking to the amendment, yes.
Mr Seselja: You have already spoken.
Mr Barr: To the motion, not to the amendment.
Mr Seselja: No, you can’t speak again, Andrew.
MR SPEAKER: No. You cannot speak to it. If there are no speakers after Dr Foskey speaks on the amendment—