Page 1269 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Matters upon which the Speaker is called upon to rule may not necessarily be addressed in the standing orders. Citing practice in the House of Representatives, the Chair has declined to give a decision on or interpret a question of law, including on the Self-Government Act.
So when the Speaker is asked to seek advice or to go back and review a ruling or a matter that has occurred in the Assembly, it clearly states that it is the Speaker’s responsibility to do that. It is the Speaker’s responsibility to do that. Mr Corbell had asked for that to occur. That is what the Speaker did. Again, I remind you that this is advice from the Clerk that the Speaker is acting on.
Basically what we are seeing here today is another example of the Canberra Liberals thinking that the standing orders, the processes of this Assembly, do not apply to them. That is what we are seeing here. Mr Smyth was the only one—I will give him credit—that actually addressed the standing orders. Every other one of the Canberra Liberals who spoke did not address them one bit.
We will not be supporting the dissent from the Speaker’s ruling. It is quite clear that there actually are not any grounds for dissent. The Canberra Liberals know that. That is why they have not addressed it in their speeches.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, are you rising to close the debate?
Mr Corbell: Are you seeking leave to speak again?
Mr Seselja: Do I need leave to speak again?
Mr Corbell: Yes, you do.
MR SPEAKER: You are either closing debate or—
Mr Seselja: I have not seen anyone else get to their feet. So—
MR SPEAKER: That is fine; just checking. You have the floor, Mr Seselja.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (10.46), in reply: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mrs Dunne: “I know so much about the standing orders”—Simon Corbell.
MR SESELJA: We will not comment on the Attorney-General’s grasp. But we would talk, Mr Speaker, a little about the issue around sub judice and the Companion to the Standing Orders, what it says and why we think this decision is completely indefensible. There are a number of questions that it looks at, of course, in relation to sub judice, in relation to the very serious step of gagging members, because that is what we are talking about when sub judice in this case is retrospectively imposed, as is being suggested in your ruling.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video