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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4471 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

My understanding of how it works here is that there is some inconsistency across the board. Some people in this place are more tetchy at some times than others are. Sometimes people seem happy with a certain environment and at other times they do not. That is part of human nature, and I guess it would often happen that way. But, when a warning has been issued, then I believe it is clear that order has been called for. When the warning has been given, it is clear. I do not see what the problem is. Once that warning has been given, then it has been communicated to a particular member that their behaviour has to change. I think that is reasonable.

The thing that I am most concerned to get across here is that I want to see the business of this place carried out as professionally as possible. I have heard many of the Labor people use language like "degrade", "degrade the office", "degrade the office of Speaker" and "degrade this place". If we behave with dignity and have intelligent debates, this place will be held in high esteem.

There are ways of dealing with issues if people are concerned. As I said, if Labor has had an ongoing concern about how question time is managed, I would have been very open to listening to them and talking about it. I do not know whether there is a problem with the standing order that says that a Minister can answer a question as he sees fit. I have not had time to look at it.

Mr Whitecross: It does not say that. It says that they have to be relevant.

MS TUCKER: Relevant; yes, I thought that point of order was taken quite often and the Speaker made a ruling on it. If Labor has been so unhappy with those rulings, then, as I said, I am not aware of that. There would have been an opportunity to talk about it and look at it much earlier than this, in the second last week of the Assembly.

Mr Wood says that the Liberals were just as disruptive in the last Assembly. I do not see the relevance of that if that was allowed to occur. Ms McRae was the Speaker then. That is something that should have been dealt with in the last Assembly. We are talking about now. I want to see the business of this house carried out in a professional manner and I want us to get on with it. That is why I think it is very important to respect the position of the Speaker. I hear him when he warns people. It is pretty clear. It is not a complicated process. You have to understand that, once a warning has been given, interjections have to cease.

MR OSBORNE (4.55): As Mr Wood indicated, I was not here during the last Assembly, so I cannot really comment on what happened then. I will say, Mr Speaker, that there have been times in the Assembly when I have not been happy with things that you have said or things that you have done, but overall I have always felt that you have been balanced and I have always felt that there has been some distinction between you and the Executive. Let us think back to funding for staff. I would have thought that if you were in the pocket of the Executive that issue would have been handled a little bit differently.

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