Page 910 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (10.27): I thank the Greens for allowing me to speak next. I was contemplating whether or not to speak on this motion because I have endeavoured throughout this process to maintain my integrity in the position of committee chair. But, following the Chief Minister’s comments, I thought it would add to the debate if I were to come down here and clarify my actions and how this matter unfolded.
At the outset, I address Mr Barr’s point that the right course of action with this language was perhaps to refer it to this place for consideration as to whether it was unparliamentary. It could have been a course of action, but that is not what happened. What happened was the threat. So Mr Barr is saying in his speech, “This is what should happen.” That is not what he did. What in actual fact happened is that he went on to make a threat.
As has been identified, it is a difficult job to be a committee chair because you have two roles: one is to litigate the argument in question; the other is to adjudicate. There is no question that I was following a difficult line of conversation or questioning with the Chief Minister because we wanted answers. But I did so within the rules of this place. That has been confirmed by the advice from the committee secretary and the advice from the Clerk—that I did so within the rules. I accept that Mr Barr did not like it, but I did it within the rules. My comments were not out of order and it was within my discretion as to whether or not I chose to withdraw them.
The issue was that the aggressive approach from Mr Barr, the belligerent manner in which he was conducting himself, made it very difficult for me to do so, or to consider doing so, without the clear inference that the chair was being intimidated. The decision I made was that as I had not said anything unparliamentary, as has been clarified by the advice, the appropriate course of action was to continue.
Madam Speaker, language in debate is always a matter for consideration. I note that in this debate you yourself had to consider the use of the word “cowardice”. You ruled that that was a debating point, in essence, and to be cautious. You did not rule it out of order. If someone had then questioned that ruling 32 times and threatened you, should you not withdraw that, how would you feel? That is exactly what happened to me.
I make the point that the language I used is used frequently in this place. As I did in the committee hearing following this exchange, I went at the lunch break and looked at the language to see whether I had made an error. I looked and I found numerous examples to confirm that I had not. I then came back to the committee and clarified that.
Let me cite some examples. On 5 May 2015, the words “filling the pockets” were ruled by the Speaker to be a debating point. Their use was ruled to be a debating point because they had been used frequently, including by Mr Barr. Mr Barr said, “Mr Hanson wants his hand in your pocket then for $25,000 or $30,000.” Mr Barr said on 11 August 2015, “That is the Jeremy Hanson way. He wants his hand in your pocket every time you transact on a property.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video