Page 473 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
same comment that he said before Mr Hanson repeated it, and it has not been resolved. I was wondering if you could ask Mr Rattenbury to withdraw or—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, I have not asked Mr Rattenbury to withdraw, because, as I explained—
Mr Seselja interjecting—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, please be quiet. The chair is speaking. I am not in a position to ask anyone to withdraw, Mr Smyth, because it was so noisy I could not hear what any of you were saying. Mr Rattenbury, you have the floor. Please restart the clocks.
MR RATTENBURY: Thank you, members. The point I was making was that Senator Brown’s bill seeks to change the situation where the federal parliament must vote, and this brings us to the considerable debate this morning there has been about consistency. There has been a whole lot of heat and noise over this side of the chamber about Senator Brown moving a disallowance, and the simple point is that Senator Brown’s disallowance motion was voted upon; it was voted on in the federal parliament. That is what Senator Brown’s amendment seeks to do now, to require anybody who has a concern with an ACT law to vote on it. So it is entirely consistent, and I think that is important to reflect on.
Of course there is a role for the commonwealth in the ACT as the national capital. I certainly believe there is always a role for the federal government to have some discussion with the ACT about the state of affairs. As the national capital we do have a position where we have linkages to the commonwealth in a way that none of the other states and territories do, so there are those national matters, and I think that is a challenging discussion to work out exactly how to draw some lines around that, but it is one that we need to continue to consider.
The unfortunate part of Mr Seselja’s amendment today, where he seeks to suggest that we need to take a broader approach—
Mr Corbell: I raise a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Please stop the clocks. Mr Corbell.
Mr Corbell: Madam Assistant Speaker, at what point in this place is the chair going to require members to listen to the debate in relative silence? You have repeatedly requested that members opposite desist from their constant interjections—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Corbell: on any matter which they disagree with—and they are still doing it, Madam Assistant Speaker. They are holding your rulings in contempt, they have no regard for the authority of the chair, and it is getting to the point where those opposite need to have their responsibilities as members drawn to their attention in such a manner that they have regard to the standing orders. They are refusing to do so, they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video