Page 5424 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is not just the form of this place; it is the form of all Westminster jurisdictions. We should be given leave. We should be able to move dissent. The dissent should be ratified by this place and this ridiculous notion that you cannot speak to a motion until it has been agreed to is just bunkum and should be treated as such.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Before we proceed, members, firstly this debate is not on the dissent; this debate is on the suspension of standing orders in order to—
Mr Smyth interjecting—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I have reflected and I have taken some advice and I believe that my interpretation of where Mr Hanson was going is not shared by the chamber. With that in mind I withdraw that particular ruling and I would invite Mr Hanson to continue his speech and have the amount of time reinstated. There were, I think, three minutes to go—I beg your pardon, one minute, 14.
Mr Seselja, it is your call now. The procedure is, as I understand it, before Mr Hanson can move dissent, you need to either continue with the suspension or withdraw it and you need leave to do so.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.16): I seek leave to withdraw the motion.
Leave granted.
MR SESELJA: I withdraw the motion to suspend standing and temporary orders.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (4.16): In speaking to my amendment, as I said before, it is important to reflect on whether this is an isolated incident or whether this is related to a minister who quite clearly has form when it comes to this sort of behaviour.
Mr Seselja interjecting—
MR HANSON: We have certainly seen that. Some of the issues may be a subject for debate. Whether they are misleads or not—I am sure Mr Corbell would argue they are not—there are some which are irrefutable. There was the case of 100 per cent of prisoners being tested for drugs. He had to come to this place and withdraw it. In fact it led, as I said, to a review by Mr Hamburger. We had the case of the prisoner lockdowns, which led to Mr Corbell appearing late in the afternoon to say to the media, “Yes, I have misled.” There are other matters which you could argue are matters of dispute, but not statements like, “This jail will have capacity for 25 years in its current bedding configuration,” and then this government puts bunk beds into the jail. It is pretty difficult to refute the fact that that was a misleading statement, a grossly misleading statement—saying that a prison was going to have a 25-year capacity when it had two years. So there is form here and it goes to the point that this minister should be censured for this latest act of misleading this Assembly. (Time expired.)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video