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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (22 February) . . Page.. 155 ..

MS McRAE: I am talking about the testing of a standing order that has not been tested before. I am talking about a situation that has never happened before. I am talking about a very new parliament with a very different seating arrangement from virtually any other parliament in Australia. This standing order comes from a different tradition, a different place, a different building and a different time. If our parliament is going to be closed down every time a group comes in and makes what is in some people's heads, not everyone's, excessive noise, then I think that we have a right, as members, to ask our representative committee to have a good look at the standing order, review the situation and come forward with recommendations. It may well be that nothing at all needs to be changed. I suspect that there is a bit more to it than we have ever seriously considered. A thorough look by the Administration and Procedure Committee may result in a smoother working of the parliament, a better set of instructions for the general public, a better set of instructions for the Speaker so that he cannot be accused of working to the whim of one group or another, and a guarantee that we are running a proper parliament that is welcoming of the general public, but welcoming in a way that is understood by all, and does not fall over at the merest breath of a bit of unnecessary noise.

MR MOORE (10.43): I noted that Ms McRae, in putting what I think is a quite sensible motion, said that she was not making any accusatory statements. She then went on to make statements that contained a light form of accusation of the Speaker favouring the Government and acting in a way that was designed to protect the Government. She gave that impression. I am going to support this motion, but not for those reasons. I have a view about whether yesterday's actions were effective or not. Having watched three Speakers in this house, I know that there are times when the Speaker makes a decision at a moment's notice, when something is going wrong, and the whole reason for having a position of Speaker is so that the Speaker can use his or her judgment at such times. Right through those six or seven years, including the time when Ms McRae was Speaker, there were times when I felt that that judgment was not done particularly effectively.

The situation yesterday, as Ms McRae has correctly pointed out, highlights the fact that it is appropriate for us to talk this through and to try to have in all of our minds a strategy on how we deal with it. If there was genuine and very strong disruption in the area next to us, I suppose Ms Tucker and I would be some of the people feeling most vulnerable, particularly if there was any suggestion of violence near the chamber and in the gallery.

Mr Osborne: I will protect you.

MR MOORE: Mr Osborne has just indicated that he would protect me, which makes me feel significantly better in terms of the physical nature of the situation. I wonder what the quid pro quo would be - not that we ever talk about quid pro quos; it does not happen. Mr Speaker, we should not consider this issue in the light of yesterday's situation. I think the fundamental line of argument that Ms McRae has taken is that yesterday's situation is a catalyst for us to say, "Let us reconsider the situation". Looking back, I would have felt much happier if the Assembly had not closed down twice in the one day. It concerns me that it could become an obvious tactic for lobbyists to use.

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