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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4469 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

If there is one thing - I direct this to the crossbenchers, because they have faced this problem also - that nullifies the significance of question time in this place, it is the refusal of this Speaker to enforce the rule of relevance; it is the refusal of this Speaker to require Ministers to answer the question. We see time and time again members on this side of the house rising in their places and saying, "Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order of relevance to ask you to direct the Minister to answer the question". When the Speaker knows that the Opposition has a point, he says, "I think the Minister is concluding the answer". He never says, "Minister, you are not relevant". He never says, "There is a point of order. You are not being relevant". I have never heard the Speaker do that in the time I have been in this place. We have been observing with growing frustration over the past six months the clear political bias of Mr Cornwell as Speaker. Mr Cornwell should be held to account for that in this place.

When the Speaker refuses to direct the Government to answer a question in a relevant manner, there is only one option left to this side of the house, and that is to interject and say to the Minister directly, because the Chair has refused to enforce it, "Answer the question". It is your failure, Mr Speaker, to enforce the rule of relevance that results in interjection from this side of the house directly to the Minister. You are meant to be the channel through which we ask questions and through which the standing orders are enforced. But when you fail to enforce standing orders we have to short-circuit you out of the process. The only way that we can get some answers is to force some answers from this Government. We will continue to do that for as long as you refuse to enforce the rule of relevance, for as long as you refuse to enforce the standing orders in this place consistently. Mr Speaker, a want-of-confidence motion is a very serious resolution. It does not happen very often; but I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that from this side of the house you have lost our confidence. This house should support the motion.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (4.48): Mr Speaker, it is quite clear from what Mr Corbell has said that those opposite have no intention of paying any attention to standing orders. It is that simple. What was done today was done as a result of a vote of this Assembly. That is the reason Mr Berry is not here. It is not totally because you named him, Mr Speaker. You named him because under standing order 202 you can name a member who has persistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the Assembly or has been guilty of disorderly conduct or has persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the Chair - and the list goes on. Anybody who suggests that Mr Berry has not wilfully and persistently obstructed the business of the Assembly or anybody who thinks that Mr Berry is not acting contrary to standing order 39, which states that no member shall make any noise or disturbance to interrupt the member who is speaking, has not listened to the Assembly for more than two minutes.

Mr Speaker, there is no doubt that being Speaker is difficult. I am sure that Ms McRae will remember that on a few occasions when she was Speaker we had a deal of difficulty. What did we do? Ms McRae, we went and spoke to you about it.

Ms McRae: Oh, rubbish!

MRS CARNELL: We did.

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