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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (22 February) . . Page.. 162 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Some of those procedures may be a little bit too draconian, but what happened yesterday in this Assembly in the public gallery was extensive disorder, which made it very difficult for this Assembly to continue. I think the point raised by Mr Moore yesterday, when he suggested that you take a certain course of action, Mr Speaker, which you did, was eminently sensible. What occurred after that, just to refresh members' memories, was that we resumed, and when further interjections came from the gallery you very politely but firmly cautioned the gallery on several occasions, and then you again suspended the sitting. In fairness to the members opposite who were in the middle of private members business, we continued with that after lunch. I would submit that that was a satisfactory and proper course of action in the circumstances.

I do think the committee has to look at what occurs elsewhere, and members opposite need to consider, and consider honestly, what they would have done in that situation. Whilst the crowd yesterday was certainly supportive of them, what would be the situation in a few years' time if they are the Government again and they have an equally hostile crowd trying to interrupt proceedings? I think they would not like to be restricted by what could turn out to be excessively restrictive constraints placed on a Speaker and an Assembly if this inquiry goes off the rails. There is appropriate behaviour. There are traditions that need to be observed. People in the public gallery may not agree with anything that is being said, they may vehemently oppose what is being said; but the tradition is they sit there in silence. They have other avenues to voice their concern. They probably have members who support their view and who will voice their concern on their behalf, and that is what parliamentary democracy is all about. They have representatives who will express their concern, as the Opposition were doing yesterday, and doing in proper parliamentary fashion.

Perhaps one of the best examples, Mr Speaker, compared with what happened yesterday - and I suggest that the action you took was quite proper and appropriate - is the situation today. We have some ladies up the back who, I take it, are nurses and who no doubt have some very strong views in relation to what is occurring at present. They are sitting here listening to this debate. They are listening in silence, which is entirely appropriate, entirely in accordance with accepted convention in this country and in other parliamentary democracies. I think people need to have regard to what occurs elsewhere. Whilst they might have supported what some people in the public gallery were doing yesterday, what would happen if the boot were on the other foot? I think these things need to be looked at by the committee. I support comments made by other members of the Government in this debate. Some of the comments made more recently by Mr Kaine are certainly quite relevant there.

MS McRAE (11.10), in reply: In closing the debate, I am very pleased to hear that there is general support for the motion. What is fascinating in all these debates is how it is always turned around to a personal attack and to a misrepresentation of the issues that are - - -

Mr Moore: You started it.

Mr De Domenico: Look at who is talking.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

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