Page 3529 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
sitting there nodding and smiling, whereas if members of the opposition were interjecting throughout a speech by either the Labor Party or the Greens we were being warned and being shut down. Can you explain that inconsistency or could you please, as I continue to progress my speech, tell Mr Barr to desist? I do not mind, as long as there is consistency. If we are allowed to talk when other people are speaking, that is fine, but please be consistent, Madam Assistant Speaker.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, are you moving a motion of dissent from my ruling?
MR HANSON: No, I am asking you, Madam Assistant Speaker—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Well, in that case—
Mr Hargreaves: Madam Assistant Speaker, can I assist, with your indulgence?
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr Hargreaves: Mr Hanson was not actually challenging the authority of the chair; he was seeking your protection, in fact, as I understand it, against the interjections or the demeanour of Mr Barr and was seeking your ruling on that, so he was not actually seeking, at this point, to move dissent from your ruling. But I do not know whether you have authority to stop Mr Barr nodding or grinning across the chamber.
MR HANSON: No—she was nodding. The point was that there is an inconsistency, Madam Assistant Speaker. I do not mind if Mr Barr is going to be allowed to interject throughout my speech, as long as you apply the same standard to the opposition. If that is the way the performance in this place is going to be, that is fine. But could you please apply it consistently throughout this debate, so if Mr Barr does continue and you continue to ignore him that is fine, but then you must also, I would contend, do the same for the opposition members.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, thank you for your comments. If you would like to continue your substantive speech, you have the floor.
MR HANSON: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker; we do not have a ruling so we will just run with the inconsistency.
Let us be very clear about what the Greens’ policies will do to the people of Canberra. They will put up their bills. They will put up the cost of living. It is quite clear that the Greens are really, with an ideological agenda which is about trying to diminish private enterprise and choice, trying to drive everybody into a public system, be it a public school or a public hospital, going to be damaging both to individual Canberrans, to their pay packets and their bills, and to the systems.
The public education system cannot cope with a big influx of kids whose parents can no longer pay for them to go to an independent school. Likewise, the public health system in the ACT cannot afford to receive the 10 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent or whatever the figure is of people who will drop out of private health insurance and now
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video