Page 1258 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
She then went into detail about how the government had implemented the policy which it accepted as a result of a parliamentary agreement. And she answered the question in full. So this nonsense, this pitter-patter, this confected nonsense about refusing to be scrutinised, refusing to answer questions on government policies, can be seen for what it is. Ms Gallagher, in relation to the matter of dissent, answered the question in full because it related to a government policy.
I do recall, Mr Speaker, an earlier occasion when, I admit, I was being just a touch political. One of my colleagues asked questions to do with the Treasury summary of the Liberal election commitments. I recall, Mr Speaker, you saying, “Look, that’s not part of your ministerial responsibility”—what it was that the Liberal Party promised to cut. I remember that I was just beginning to get a head of steam up, in the context of the Liberal Party’s position—that the Liberal Party will now not stand to move a point of order as I go through some of the Liberal Party’s election commitments and their promises to cut, because that would be actually refusing me the right to respond or to scrutinise the position, the political position, of the Liberal Party. So what was it that the Liberal Party promised to do if they were elected to government?
Mr Smyth: Relevance.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope.
MR STANHOPE: Oh, relevance! It goes to the nonsense of your position.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Stanhope!
MR STANHOPE: Oh, we should not answer questions about the Labor Party-Greens political issues but—
MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope, one moment, please.
Mr Hanson: On a point of order—
MR STANHOPE: Are you trying to gag me now that we’re on to Liberal Party policies?
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Hanson has the floor.
Mr Hanson: The point of order that was previously made about relevance against me was because I was talking about Labor Party policy and in terms of their commitment. But it was directly related to press releases which contained references to the parliamentary agreement and using those as the rationale for why those commitments had been made, which is entirely relevant to this debate, which is about the Greens-Labor parliamentary agreement and whether it should be subject to questions in this house. Going on to a long-winded rant about Liberal Party policies, which have nothing to do with the Greens-Labor parliamentary agreement, I think is entirely irrelevant.
If Mr Stanhope would like to make a speech about our policies, we would welcome that, but I do not think it is quite relevant to this debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video