Page 1253 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of their responsibilities as ministers. What you are doing essentially is preventing us from doing that and allowing the government to cover up what is a fundamental document, a document that drives much of the government’s agenda.
If you do not think that is true, if you think that I am wrong, I suggest you go to the government’s website, where you will find 16 press releases from various ministers, including the Chief Minister, that use the parliamentary agreement as justification for millions and millions of dollars of ACT taxpayers’ money that has been spent. I will just run through some of those for you very quickly. There is one from Mr Corbell talking about the spending of $19.1 million.
Mr Corbell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
MR HANSON: Stop the clocks, please.
MR SPEAKER: The clocks, thank you, clerks.
Mr Corbell: Mr Speaker, the question before the chair is that your ruling be dissented from. It is not an opportunity for a broader critique about government policy implementation or any of those matters. That is not the question before the chair. The question before the chair is that the ruling be upheld. It is a technical debate about your interpretation of the standing orders and whether or not it is correct. While it is, of course, appropriate for the opposition to put it in the broader context of scrutiny of the government, it is not the opportunity to get into some critique of government administration, which is exactly what Mr Hanson is doing. It is about your interpretation of the standing orders. Mr Hanson should remain relevant during this debate.
MR HANSON: Mr Speaker, on the point of order, the press releases that I am referring to are 16 press releases all of which mention the parliamentary agreement. What I am trying to make a point about is that, if you have got the government and ministers putting out press releases, as ministers, referencing and discussing the parliamentary agreement as their justification for expending millions of dollars, that is directly in line with the debate here, which is about the Greens-Labor agreement and its applicability to ministers. So I see there is no point of order.
MR SPEAKER: On the point of order, Mr Hanson, I hear your argument. I think that what I also heard in Mr Corbell’s argument is that this is the forms of the place. We are debating the merits of the dissent from the ruling, and more broad-ranging comments on the performance of the Speaker should probably be taken up in a want-of-confidence motion if that is the path you want to go down.
Mr Seselja: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, the comments that Mr Corbell seemed to be taking most objection to were press releases by ministers which referenced the Greens-Labor agreement, which went to the spending of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. I am not quite sure how that is relevant to the ruling that you just gave us.
MR SPEAKER: It is relevant because I was actually contemplating the broader question already and Mr Corbell provided me with a platform from which to seek
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video