Page 433 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 18 February 2015

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Members interjecting—

Only a full and independent inquiry will satisfy these requirements. Based on the evidence before us, we would be negligent in our responsibility as a parliament not to scrutinise this issue fully. The extraordinary threats that we have seen from Labor members in this place attacking members of the opposition and targeting specific members of the Canberra Times for simply doing their job have been outrageous.

Mr Corbell: You’re a grub.


Mr Corbell: I withdraw.

MADAM SPEAKER: Could you sit down, Mr Hanson, and could we stop the clock, please. This is a very sensitive debate. There has been a level of interjection which is less than is often the case, but I think that there should not be any interjection. Quite frankly, if members start calling people names across the chamber as you did now, Mr Corbell—and as soon as you did you got to your feet to withdraw—that is not acceptable behaviour. You do not call people names and then get to your feet to withdraw just so that you can get to call people names. I will not tolerate it. Yesterday you were required to withdraw the same word. So I will be much stricter in this debate than I normally am. I will expect a high level of propriety because of the sensitivity of this issue, the same as I was expecting a high level of propriety when this sensitive issue was dealt with in question time yesterday.

MR HANSON: I will say again that the extraordinary threats that we have seen from the Labor members attacking members of the opposition—

Mr Corbell: A point of order.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order. Could you stop the clock, please?

Mr Corbell: Madam Speaker, it is an imputation on Labor members to suggest that members are threatening Mr Hanson or members of the media. It is quite a serious allegation and, generally speaking, it is an allegation that would only be able to be made through some form of substantive motion. It is an improper assertion against members in this place and I do not believe it is parliamentary. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, it is disorderly language, and I seek your ruling on it.

MR HANSON: On the point of order, this is a substantive motion. This is a debating point. I stand by it, and a referral to yesterday’s Hansard and the interjections during question time from those opposite regarding Liberal Party family members would indicate that the Labor Party made threats against and attacks on members of the opposition.

MADAM SPEAKER: Do you have a transcript of what you said, Mr Hanson? Did you read what—

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video