Page 5431 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR SESELJA: Could we stop the clock?
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: We should have the clock stopped if it has not been. Mr Seselja, I thought I had explained that to you already. Mr Hanson indicated a whole litany of suggestions on Mr Corbell’s history. Mr Smyth repeated exactly the same history and you have launched into your speech, which is your right, to do exactly—
Mr Barr: You are saying exactly the same—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Excuse me, minister! You are doing exactly the same thing. What I am seeing is possibly the same litany being offered in speeches for the third time and in that sense I uphold the point of order.
MR SESELJA: Again, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for that ruling. It is interesting that Mr Barr’s contribution to this debate has been simply to interject and raise points of order. He has not been prepared to get up and defend his colleague, nor has the Chief Minister.
Members interjecting—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Order! Members of the government will come to order.
MR SESELJA: What is your excuse? The Chief Minister has an excuse?
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, resume your seat, please. Stop the clock. I will not have members of the government and members of the opposition having a contest across the chamber. I will not have my request to have order in this place over-spoken by you, Mr Seselja. I will not have it. I am now calling this house to order. Mr Seselja, please resume your speech and there shall be no more bantering across the chamber.
MR SESELJA: So what is the Deputy Chief Minister’s excuse? The Chief Minister has a good excuse for not defending Mr Corbell, but the Deputy Chief Minister does not. Perhaps we can speculate that maybe he does not want to defend the indefensible. He will get up and he will take a point of order about tedious repetition, but he will not get up and say—maybe he could tell us what he would have done, faced with similar circumstances, as a minister.
Let us ask the questions. What would another minister do? What would a reasonable minister do? What would you do if you had information given to you and you wrote a letter to the Canberra Times saying one thing that was not true? You then had it put to you a few days later in a committee hearing and you are told that in fact it was not true, that the RSPCA, this organisation, said to you it is not true. What would you do? What would a reasonable minister do?
Maybe that is why Mr Barr does not want to get up and speak. Really, does he want to endorse the behaviour of Mr Corbell? Does he really want to endorse the behaviour of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video