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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2592 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

I commend the report. I believe it is a good step forward to resolving a very difficult issue. It accepts the idea that the Speaker cannot have an absolute right to throw out anybody that annoys him or her slightly. It would be very tempting sometimes, with some of the people that walk through, to say, "Out"; you want to say that just through their mere presence in the chamber. On the other hand, the Speaker must have the right to deal appropriately with these people. This report has given us good guidance on that. I look forward to the legislation coming forward and perhaps next year a new project beginning out of this.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (11.29): Mr Speaker, I support the thrust of the recommendations put before the Assembly by this report. A Government response has been tabled, of course, but I will just make a couple of comments on the matter. The parliamentary precincts legislation is proceeding. I believe it is well advanced. I hope we are able to present it to the Assembly before the end of this year. I think it is on the program for this sitting. I believe that should be possible.

I also support the thrust of the proposed new standing order 209A. I might indicate, Mr Speaker, that the Government response indicated that there was some reservation about proposed new standing order 209A in so far as it related to the necessity for there to be disruption or disorder before it would operate. I have to say that I have reconsidered that particular position, and I might be urging on my colleagues that we actually take a different view about that. It has been the case, historically, that other parliaments have exercised the power to, as it were, meet in camera because of the sensitivity of some matters being discussed. In the case of, I think, both the British and Australian parliaments, that certainly occurred during the Second World War.

Although we do not envisage being at war with one of our neighbouring States, cities or whatever, we may find, on occasions, a need to consider the debating of issues in this place without the presence of members of the public. That would obviously be extremely rare, and there has not been an occasion until now when it has been obviously necessary here. Nonetheless, a mechanism to allow it to occur might have to be considered. Given the safety valve of members having to agree to do so, and presumably they would do so in the knowledge of why it was being done, it may be appropriate not to modify proposed new standing order 209A to restrict the operation of that provision to those circumstances where disruption was taking place or disorder was present in the gallery.

I also comment simply that the change from the traditional wording, from "stranger" to "visitor", is not something that I think is a good thing. I think it is perhaps better to be clearing the gallery by asking strangers to leave than by asking visitors to leave. By definition, a visitor is someone that you invite to come in and share the warmth of the hearth. Telling them to get out after inviting them to come in is perhaps a little impolite. Mr Speaker, with that very small reservation in mind, I would certainly support the recommendations contained in this report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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