Page 2270 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and the Greens on this matter. You are not acting in this case as a Speaker who has the role of arbitrating these matters fairly and without favour. You are showing your political prejudices on this matter while refusing to have your decisions reviewed by this place, Mr Speaker. You should have stood above the matter. You should have said, “Well, that’s fine; let’s have the debate about whether or not granting precedence was appropriate.” But no; instead, you chose to refuse to have a member objecting to precedence being granted.
Mr Speaker, that is the issue of great concern to this government today. This morning on this matter you have behaved in a partisan manner, in a manner that betrays your political allegiances rather than your obligation as Speaker. For that reason, the government dissents from your ruling. It says that you have got it wrong in this case; you should not be granting this matter precedence; and you should not be prepared to put yourself in a situation where you are not even prepared to have your decision subject to any review in this place. It is wrong, it is unfair and it is a partisan move on your part which reduces your authority in this place.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.17): The great shame of this debate is that, if Mr Corbell had simply referred to page 746 of the House of Representatives Practice, from which, of course, we take guidance about the way matters are conducted in this place, he would simply know that he is wrong. If Mr Corbell—the father of the house, the longest serving member of this place and the manager of government business—instead of politicising what is happening, had acted in accordance with the standing orders, he would also know that he is wrong.
It is easy to throw around words likes “flip”, “ad hoc”, “inappropriate” and “abuse of power”, but the simple reality, as confirmed by both the standing orders of the Assembly and the House of Representatives Practice, is that you have simply followed the process that this place detailed. Indeed, when these standing orders were put in place—I will remind Mr Corbell that they were put in place as of 2 April 2009, and my memory is that it was by the unanimous vote of the Assembly—the process for privilege and matters arising were clearly outlined in standing order 276. That is something Mr Corbell conveniently forgets, as he so often does.
But let us start with the source of where we make these decisions and how we make the decision. Mr Corbell contends that you have made a ruling, Mr Speaker. You, of course, are right in saying that you had not made a ruling. Indeed, if Mr Corbell and those opposite had listened to what you had said, they would know that you made it quite clear that you did not judge in favour of or against; you just said that there may be something here to answer—which is entirely appropriate.
Let me go to House of Representatives Practice on page 746; it starts on 745. The subheading is “Determination of whether a matter can be accorded precedence”. It goes through the House of Reps practice and then it goes to the final paragraph in this section. It says:
An opinion—
it is an opinion, Mr Corbell, an opinion—
by the Speaker on a complaint raised under standing order 51—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .