Page 2202 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Corbell: This debate is not about the ongoing enmity that Mr Hanson expresses towards Mr Rattenbury. It is about your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not about what Mr Hanson thinks about Mr Rattenbury. It is not about the position Mr Rattenbury adopts in the debate. It is about whether or not your ruling is correct.
Mr Seselja: Madam Deputy Speaker, could you stop the clock, please?
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stop the clock, please. There is a point of order here, Mr Corbell, I agree. This is not about Mr Rattenbury. The question before the house is about dissent from my ruling, not anything to do with Mr Rattenbury or his role as the Speaker, because he is not acting as Speaker right at this minute.
MR HANSON: On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Corbell, in speaking to this matter of debate, and Mr Rattenbury himself when speaking to this matter of debate, raised the issue of the effectiveness, the appropriateness, of one of our standing orders. He talked about a continuing resolution of the Assembly that appears in our standing orders. It was Mr Rattenbury who was the person who raised the point that we have a problem with our standing orders that might need to be addressed.
He is the one who raised it. You did not then, Madam Deputy Speaker, say that that was not in accordance with the debate. I make the point that Mr Rattenbury has injected himself as either the Speaker or as a member of the Greens to talk about the appropriateness of standing orders. I think that it is relevant to highlight the fact that it is impossible in this place to continue a debate, effectively, about the standing orders when we are confused, we are conflicted about whether Mr Rattenbury is standing there debating this as Speaker or as a member of the Greens. That is the point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Hargreaves: On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Hargreaves.
Mr Hargreaves: The issue in a nutshell is whether or not your interpretation of standing orders is correct. The issue is not whether the standing order is appropriate, whether it is just or anything else. The question before the house, the dissent, is in your interpretation of that standing order. I would ask you to bear that in mind when considering these points of order.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Hargreaves. Indeed, I am—
MR HANSON: If I could speak further on the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, in response to what Mr Hargreaves said.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.
MR HANSON: Part of the conversation specifically from Mr Rattenbury has been that the problem here appears not to be necessarily with your ruling but with the standing order itself. So it is highly relevant that I would bring this into the debate in response to that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video