Page 433 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr De Domenico, thank you for bringing that to my attention; but that was yesterday, and no-one took a point of order on that yesterday. I will now deal with the point of order concerning the facts that are before us today. To "have your hands in someone's pocket" has more than one meaning, in my mind - - -
Mr Kaine: One of these days you will start to act like a Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Kaine, you will withdraw that. There will be no such allusions to the Speaker in this chamber. You will withdraw that comment against me.
Mr Kaine: Madam Speaker, under standing order 275 I move a motion of dissent from your ruling.
MADAM SPEAKER: The house has to give you leave to do that. Is leave granted?
Mr Kaine: I do not have to have leave.
MADAM SPEAKER: I believe that you do.
Mr Kaine: I suggest that you read standing order 275. I do not need leave.
MADAM SPEAKER: There has been a consistent ruling in this house, and not just from me, that standing order 275 cannot be used to allude to a specific standing order that is used in the House of Representatives. The situation before us is as I suggested. There is no provision under our standing orders for a motion of dissent and, if you want to so move, it has to be done by leave of the house. Leave can be granted. I can ask the house to grant you leave. Does the house grant Mr Kaine leave to more a motion of dissent from my ruling?
Leave not granted.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Kaine, the position is that you will withdraw that comment that was directed at me as Speaker, and then I will rule on Mr Lamont's point of order.
Mr Kaine: I could say that I will do a deal with you and I will withdraw my comment if you will withdraw your ruling, but I will not ask you to do that. I will try to give this place some dignity.
Mr Connolly: Is that a withdrawal?
Mr Kaine: Yes, it is.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Kaine. I understand that the expression "hands in people's pockets" is being used quite frequently in the election campaign at the moment. However, in this parliament it has been taken as an offensive remark because it has the double meaning of someone having their hands in somebody else's pocket specifically for money for their personal gain. My ruling is that the imputation of your remark is that there is an improper motive behind Mr Connolly's actions. Because offence has been taken, I ask you to withdraw.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .