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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4460 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

It is incumbent on a Speaker in the parliamentary system of which we are a part to conduct himself in a way which is fair to all, to conduct himself in a way which ensures that all members in this place have an equal opportunity to discharge their responsibilities to the people who have elected them and put them in this place. It has become increasingly apparent that that is not possible in this place.

The litany of obstacles which members in this place have faced in relation to this matter is very long. To begin with, there is the relentless inconsistency in the approach taken to dealing with members of the Opposition and the approach taken to dealing with members of the Government. As we saw only today, no fewer than four members of the Opposition were warned about interjections. We have a situation where any minor breach of the standing orders results in a very heavy hand being applied by the Speaker, while persistent and wilful breaches of standing orders by Government members, particularly in relation to relevance, are consistently ignored by the Speaker. That is not to mention the question of interjections. No-one from the Government side is ever brought to order for interjecting; nor is any Government member ever warned about interjections.

It seems to me that this place will not work if we have a situation where the robust debate which is an essential part of the parliamentary process, an essential part of parliamentary democracy, is stifled by the heavy hand of a Speaker who is not able to manage the place without applying an iron fist to each minor interjection that is made. Mr Berry was suspended today for a one-off interjection - not part of a relentless pattern of wilful and disorderly conduct, but a one-off remark made across the chamber to Mr Kaine. The last time he was suspended, he was suspended for a remark which most members in this place did not even hear. In fact, Mr Speaker, I would not be surprised if you did not hear it, because normally you name someone only after you have got the nod from Mrs Carnell, not because you have made an independent judgment as to the disorderly nature of the conduct. Mr Speaker, on both occasions on which Mr Berry has been named, he has been named as a result of a deliberate policy, which was evident from the start of proceedings, to have Mr Berry suspended - not on the basis of Mr Berry's conduct in this place.

Mr Berry's conduct in this place today and on the previous occasion on which he was suspended was perfectly consistent with normal standards of parliamentary practice which you would see in any parliament in Australia. On both occasions, the action which led to his being named was an isolated incident, not part of a systematic campaign of wilful and deliberate disorderly conduct of the kind which normally leads to someone being named. Certainly, Mr Speaker, it was not a flagrant breach of the standing orders, which one would expect to be the basis for people being named.

Mr Speaker, it is not good enough for the office of Speaker in this place to be used to prosecute a Government policy of seeking to have Mr Berry suspended from the service of the house simply in order to make some kind of obscure political point about Mr Berry. On both occasions on which Mr Berry has been suspended, it has been as a result of a Government policy - not Mr Berry's actions - designed to somehow put Mr Berry in a bad light by having him suspended from the house. Mr Speaker, that is not the role of the Speaker in this place, and it is unacceptable that you have lowered the standing of the

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