Page 5422 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
He made the claims, in an answer to a question on notice, that 100 per cent of prisoners were drug tested before entering the jail. That has been proved not to be true. In actual fact, it led to the Hamburger review where that specific issue had to be investigated. It led to a position where Mr Corbell and indeed Mr Stanhope both misled the Assembly and the community about whether drug testing was occurring.
We have a case today where it seems that Mr Corbell has been verballing the DPP about manslaughter, and that is another issue that we will be pursuing.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Stop the clock. Mr Hanson, I did ask you to keep to the point. You have strayed way away from the subject. You have ignored the request that I made for you not to argue it had that amendment been successfully passed in this chamber. It has not been put. You have assumed that it has been put. I am now sitting you down. Do you want to dissent?
Mr Hanson: Mr Assistant Speaker, on a point of order, I was speaking to Mr Hanson’s amendment. I was speaking to my amendment. Whether it has been successfully voted on or not is irrelevant. I was speaking to the amendment. I was making the case for my amendment. You are the one who invited me to speak to my amendment.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, resume your seat. Mr Hanson, I have heard what you have said. That is not my interpretation of what you were saying at all. You were actually prosecuting the same argument, not advancing the reason why the amendment should be acceptable. I have now concluded your speech. Thank you very much.
Dissent from ruling
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to move dissent from your ruling.
Leave not granted.
Suspension of standing and temporary orders
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.11): I move:
That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Seselja from moving dissent from the Assistant Speaker’s ruling.
I will be brief. In summary, Mr Assistant Speaker, your ruling there was an embarrassment. It bears no resemblance to the standing orders. You have effectively ruled that someone can no longer speak to their amendment to a motion; they cannot speak as an advocate for that amendment until that amendment is passed. It is absurd. It is an absolute embarrassment. I am not going to speak for long because it is just so patently obvious that you have got it wrong and I think your ruling is an embarrassment. If this precedent were to be followed no-one would be able to speak
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video