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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (22 February) . . Page.. 159 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

often are thwarted because members start off with a position. I am certainly not starting off with a position on this. The Greens never have started off with a set position, and I understood that that was one of the values of committee work. I would like to make that quite clear. The topic of grave disorder would lead to an interesting discussion. Yesterday I sought from the Clerk clarification on the proceedings and how it would normally go. It obviously does not come up very often. I share Mr Kaine's concern about trying to define "grave disorder" because there is a lot of value judgment in that. Anyway, I think it could be a worthwhile discussion and I am happy to support the motion.

MR BERRY (10.58): As a member of the committee, I want to make it clear that I consider this to be a fairly serious issue. I wish Mr Kaine had stayed in the Assembly and not left the chamber, in order that I can raise a few issues about his speech. I think Mr Kaine's speech on ABC radio was far closer to the mark when it comes to the behaviour in the Assembly. I think his speech was a rather shallow attempt and I think it needs to be examined in quite close detail.

It is clear from the standing orders that there is a distinction between the Assembly and the chamber. Yesterday it was a question of interpretation. I think the committee has to look at these issues and find some way to resolve the question. Yesterday I felt that the Assembly was not in any grave disorder; in fact, it was operating reasonably smoothly. Yes, there was some pressure in the chamber arising from the gallery. That pressure would have been felt by the Chief Minister, and that can happen from time to time. That is the name of the game. In so far as the operations of this Assembly were concerned, I would not have regarded the operations of the Assembly as being impeded by that behaviour any more than by the sort of interjections that we get across the chamber during question time. I have seen the situation arise in this chamber, when there is a constant barrage of interjections from one side or the other, when the Assembly would have been more justified in closing down than it was yesterday. That is my interpretation of the matter.

The issue that worries me most is the relationship between what I saw yesterday and the well-known rule of law that justice not only has to be done but also has to be seen to be done. For an ordinary member of the community sitting in the gallery yesterday, watching the Chief Minister urging the Speaker repeatedly, watching her walk up to the Speaker, whisper in his ear, and then resume her seat - - -

Mr Moore: You can do that yourself, Wayne. I do it occasionally.

MR BERRY: That is fine, I accept that; but it is never - - -

Mr Moore: I like to see whether I can influence the Speaker.

MR BERRY: Indeed, but not about stopping the proceedings in the chamber. I do not know whether or not the Speaker took any notice of Mrs Carnell in making his decision. I would not have a clue. But that is not the issue at large. The issue at large is that the appearance was that Mrs Carnell was trying to urge the Speaker to do certain things. At the time of the second suspension Mrs Carnell gave one signal to the Speaker and the Speaker then suspended the Assembly. For the ordinary person sitting in - - -

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