Page 1285 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Madam Deputy Speaker, what hypocrisy. What rank hypocrisy. We have got the Speaker in the chamber at the time actually making comments about cases that are on foot—in some cases where no-one has pleaded guilty—and no such standard is being applied. Just to highlight the farcical nature of this, I will now formally seek the Speaker’s ruling in writing in relation to the Speaker’s comments last week in this debate. I would ask that we receive written advice on the Speaker’s comments in relation to cases and also in relation to Ms Gallagher’s comments.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is absolute hypocrisy. It is saying, “Because the Liberal Party prosecuted its case vigorously, and we did not like that case, we are now going to gag you.” The Speaker can say what he likes, Ms Gallagher can say what she likes and the Greens and the Labor Party can say what they like. But not the Liberal Party—not on this issue because they are so sensitive about it. What a joke! We look forward to that advice from the Speaker in relation to statements which the Speaker made in this place on a number of issues before the courts.
This amendment should be supported simply to highlight the hypocrisy and the ridiculousness of this motion and simply to say that the Canberra Liberals will in no way be silenced on this or other issues simply because the Labor Party and the Greens do not like it.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Chief Minister, Minister for Health and Minister for Territory and Municipal Services) (11.44): The government will not be supporting Mr Hanson’s amendment, and I will go to that in detail in a minute. But I draw a process matter to the attention of the Assembly in the sense that the amendment has been written to express its grave concern at the alleged breach of sub judice by me. Mr Seselja in his comments has just said that he is going to be seeking advice about whether that has actually occurred. So even if we were of the mind to support this, technically I do not think that anyone is in a position to do so because that case has not been proven.
I draw the comparison between what I would do if I got advice that I had breached continuing resolution 10. The approach I would take would be to come into this place and apologise. I do not think I have breached continuing resolution 10; I think my comments were very measured. But anyway, I—
Opposition members interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Gallagher, please sit down. Stop the clock, please. Members of the opposition, you were heard in silence when you were on your feet. Please pay the same respect to the Chief Minister now. If you do not, I will warn you next time you interject. Ms Gallagher.
MS GALLAGHER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The 17 members of this place are the custodians of the standing orders. They guide our debates and our processes, they allow for flexibility to deal with issues as they arise and they allow for sanctions if one or more of us steps outside the parameters. This motion today, despite the arguments presented by the Liberal Party, is not about any one particular case; it is about appropriate standards and conduct of debate in this place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video