Page 3205 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Instead, the example that Mr Speaker has shown in recent weeks is that this place is not concentrating on core business. Instead, we are, in effect, condoning criminal activities. It is a great shame and for all those reasons that is why I believe the Speaker is not fit to serve in his current role.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Chief Minister, Minister for Health and Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.41): Speakers of Westminster parliaments play a central role in maintaining the dignity and efficient functioning of our parliaments. Traditionally it is a role to which those who are elected are reluctantly dragged by their colleagues, as it is an onerous duty to maintain order amongst one’s sometimes unruly colleagues. I think we have seen plenty of examples of that in this term of the Assembly.
Any motion, therefore, of no confidence in the Speaker is a very serious step for a parliament to take. It reflects that one of our number whom we have elevated to the highest office in the parliament no longer has our support. It has happened once in the history of this Assembly, in December 1997, when the allegation of bias made went to the core of the Speaker’s role. That motion was lost, and that is the only precedent against which the current motion can be judged.
It is not a decision we should take lightly or, indeed, for short-term political gain. The institutions of the parliament and the system of government in the ACT are too important for us to allow them to become pawns in a game of political point scoring. It is certainly, I think, regrettable when we reflect on the issues that led to this motion that the office of the Speaker has been brought into a debate about what amounts to alleged criminal activity, and we would certainly prefer that it was not the case.
Indeed, in our parliament of 17, given its small size, it has become accepted practice that Speakers do participate in party political debate and public life. It is important for them to be mindful of the responsibilities they carry to this place and to uphold its place in the eyes of the community. I think Mr Rattenbury seeks to juggle the duality of his roles and his competing roles in this parliament.
We all have causes and beliefs about which we are passionate and about which we make public statements from time to time. We all meet with groups and individuals whose views accord with our own and with groups fundamentally opposed to our view of the world. We are also sometimes embarrassed by the activities of the members of groups with whom we are associated. It is beholden on all of us as members to stand up for what we believe in and speak out on issues about which we are passionate. But we should also be careful about how we do that, mindful of our responsibilities as members of this place, as community leaders and as law makers.
We believe the motion put forward by the Liberals is out of proportion to the situation created by Mr Rattenbury with his comments about alleged unlawful behaviour by a group of people. I am sure that with the benefit of hindsight and careful reflection, Mr Speaker may have chosen words which could not have been construed in the way that the Liberals seek to today.
Do Mr Speaker’s comments following that alleged unlawful behaviour warrant one of the highest sanctions afforded to members in this place? The government think not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video