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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (27 March) . . Page.. 907 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Now, when we had to have that vote and Mr Rugendyke asked me whether I would pair with Mr Osborne, I thought that was a presumption. I understand that Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne are not a party. Earlier in this debate I think Mr Humphries made the comment-I think it was an interjection, but I will pick it up-that the Labor Party apparently can read the minds of their members. The difference obviously is that the Labor Party is a party which takes a position on any given issue. We do not see people in the Labor Party taking a different view.

On the other hand, we have Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke. Now, this morning, in this debate, there was a vote on a procedural issue, the suspension of standing orders. Mr Rugendyke voted one way and Mr Osborne voted the other way on that motion for the suspension. Mr Rugendyke voted with Labor against that. Why? I don't know why. There was a limited time for that debate. Clearly, Mr Rugendyke had a different view from Mr Osborne.

In the situation that occurred here on the last sitting day we had exactly the same situation. I have never been told by Mr Osborne that he would never, under any circumstances, support a motion against a ruling of the Speaker. I do not know that. He has not told me that. So I believe it was not appropriate that I should be asked by another member of the crossbench, who is not in a party with Mr Osborne, to grant a pair. I was not spoken to by Mr Osborne's adviser. For that reason I think it would have been entirely inappropriate for me to take the word of Mr Rugendyke on this matter. I have seen Mr Osborne change his position on matters because he listens to the arguments, as I do, and that was the first time I had supported any kind of ruling against the Speaker. Under the circumstances on that day I thought it was appropriate.

Getting back to the question of the responses to this issue and the amendments that Mr Kaine and Mr Moore have put, I believe that they should be looked at by the Administration and Procedure Committee. I do not know that they are going to deal with the issues that have caused concern. I think this is something that every member of this place can take responsibility to deal with. We can take very seriously the rights of privilege that we have here.

At one point I was considering moving for another possible topic for discussion in the Administration and Procedure Committee. Mr Humphries has referred to this twice this morning already. Standing order 117 does not apply to the answering of a question, only to the asking. There are quite strong rules in the standing orders about how we can ask a question in terms of naming people and so on. In fact, on occasions I have named people, and I think I can recall that on one occasion it was probably unnecessary. I was certainly pulled up by the government on that occasion, and I acknowledge that it was probably unnecessary. I take those standing orders seriously.

But Mr Humphries then says, "Standing orders do not apply to the answering of a question, and therefore we don't have anything to discuss." Of course we do. If people feel that the right of privilege is being abused in some way, then I think there is a legitimate right for that discussion to occur in this place. We might have different views on whether or not what Mr Moore said about the person concerned was appropriate, and we should be able to have that debate.

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