Page 1620 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
member’s disorderly conduct is getting towards being required to be named according to the standing orders. Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: I thank Mr Barr for that point, because it actually goes to the point I am going to make, which is—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, you have sought leave. Is leave granted?
Leave granted.
MR HANSON: Thank you. My point is that, regardless of the warnings that you gave to Mr Coe or Mr Stanhope when you were saying it was three to one—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I am just advised again, Mr Hanson, and I did answer you earlier on, that you need to move a motion of some type—like a motion of dissent.
MR HANSON: Mr Assistant Speaker, I move:
That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.
MR HARGREAVES: Thank you.
Mr Barr: On a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker, can I clarify whether you have actually made a ruling, or just issued a warning?
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I have issued a warning, Mr Barr. Mr Hanson can move any motion he likes and it will be at the pleasure of the chamber. Mr Hanson, you have moved the motion. The question now is that the motion be agreed to. Mr Hanson, you have the floor.
MR HANSON: Mr Assistant Speaker, the point is that the form of this place has been that when members are warned then essentially the next action that comes from the Speaker’s chair is that the member gets ejected. So it does carry some weight in this place. I think that the point is not necessarily on this particular warning, but it is the balance that you have shown towards the interjections between Mr Coe and Mr Stanhope. Although you said that you had spoken to Mr Coe three times and you had spoken to Mr Stanhope two times, the point is that the interjections from Mr Stanhope were far more persistent in their manner. He actually started with the interjections, calling Mrs Dunne immature, describing the Assembly as a kindergarten, I think it was. He continued on with his interjections to which Mr Coe then responded. But it was actually Mr Stanhope who was the main protagonist and the instigator of the interjections.
So your decision to basically pick on Mr Coe, to warn him, to focus on him and name him from the Speaker’s chair was entirely inconsistent. That is my point. Mr Assistant Speaker, I did sense in your decision to warn Mr Coe an inconsistent application from the chair of warnings and of your treatment of the opposition benches, as opposed to the government benches. I think that if you were to review the Hansard, or certainly the Daily on Demand, you would note that Mr Stanhope was far more prolific with his
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video