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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4479 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

Ms Tucker said that the Opposition interjects more than the Government. Of course the Opposition interjects more than the Government, because the forms of the house are designed to give precedence to Government business. Question time is about the Government answering questions. It is a period in proceedings which is dominated by the Government. In every parliament in Australia question time is a period which is dominated by the Government. If the Government are the ones on their feet all the time, it is the Opposition that is going to be interjecting, not the Government. It is a nonsense to make a big thing of the fact that oppositions interject more than governments. It is a natural part of the parliamentary process.

There are other standing orders which apply more to the Government than they do to the Opposition. There are some standing orders which it is the Government's responsibility to uphold. They deal with things like conciseness, relevance, a respect for the forms of parliament, and answering the question that has been asked. These are matters for the Government.

While it might be the case that oppositions have interjected more, it is certainly the case that governments have skirted round questions, not answered the questions that were asked of them, not produced the information they were asked to produce and declined to provide information when they were asked to provide it. Those things have all been done by the Government. This Speaker has not sought to enforce the standing orders in relation to the Government while he has been seeking to enforce standing orders in relation to the Opposition. Yes, they are different standing orders; but they are all standing orders, they are all important to the good operation of this place and they have to be applied consistently.

A number of furphies were raised in the course of the debate. Mr Moore and Mr Osborne both made much of the fact that they have been ejected from this place. Yes, they have; but every single member in this place knows that they got ejected on purpose. They came in here with the express purpose of getting themselves ejected so that they could go out and hold a press conference about how important the issue was to them that they were willing to get ejected over it. Do not come in here and talk about a time that you deliberately got yourself ejected and compare that to what has happened to Mr Berry today. They are not the same thing at all.

Government members made much of the fact that Mrs Littlewood was refused her silly stunt of hanging things off the building. Yes, she was refused, and full marks to the Speaker for refusing her; but so what? It does not go to the question of the conduct of the Speaker in this place. Much was also made of the fact that the Chief Minister cut the Speaker's staff allocation and that this proves that the Chief Minister holds no sway over the Speaker. I think it proves exactly the opposite. The Chief Minister cut the Speaker's staff allocation precisely to demonstrate to the Speaker who was in charge, precisely to demonstrate her power over him, precisely to get him on a leash so that he would know who was in charge. Members over there might be short-sighted; but members on this side of the house see the Chief Minister making eyes to the Speaker, saying, "I have had enough. It is time for you to name someone. It is time for you to throw somebody out". That happens all the time. If you cannot see it from over there, perhaps you should come over here, because you will see it from over here.

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