Page 1698 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stevenson: So we have rules about what I do in this Assembly and rules about what someone else does in this Assembly?
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes. Order!
Mr Wood: Keep your voice down.
Mr Stevenson: Why should I keep my voice down, Mr Wood? It is appalling. It is not okay. We have two rules in this place. Well may you smile, Chief Minister, because they are on your side.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Mr Stevenson, you have been asked to withdraw because the standing orders require that you withdraw. I have told you that when you have withdrawn I will make a further explanation of my first ruling, which seemed to have raised your displeasure. Would you please withdraw your improper imputation?
Mr Stevenson: I withdraw the imputation.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you. Now, let me explain. The Chief Minister's argument was pointing out the relevance of your contribution to the debate in hand.
Mr Stevenson: Exactly.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Minister followed that along the same trail she had followed in explaining Mr Humphries's contribution to the debate, all in the context of the history of the debates apparently conducted in this place, before my time, about other positions. In that regard, Mr Stevenson, I regarded Ms Follett's comments as relevant because they were directly following from the debate that had developed within the chamber. I take your point that if somebody raises an irrelevant issue I should rule on it. I have no problem with that, Mr Stevenson; but you should heed carefully why I rule in some instances. I have offered you an explanation, which I rarely do.
MS FOLLETT: Concluding my comments, I merely want to observe that Mr Stevenson should be more forthright about his role in this place, which is that of an elected politician in a legitimate parliament of Australia. Mr Stevenson does not accept that role. He plays very little part in the procedures of this parliament, and he has demonstrated over and over again that he has no knowledge of standing orders, nor does he wish to acquire any such knowledge, even when he is more than adequately informed. Madam Speaker, I dismiss his arguments. I think he is making a determined effort to disregard the powers this Assembly has. Clearly, one of the powers this Assembly has is to debate such a matter, to change our standing orders if it is the wish of this Assembly to do so. In making those decisions and voting on those matters, it is incumbent upon all of us to observe the rules that apply, and those rules have been observed, as they were back in 1989, when the issue before us was recognition of another member, namely, the Leader of the Opposition.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .