Page 3216 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What did House of Representatives Practice say? It said “dedicated,” “must have a deep-seated reverence for the institution of parliament”. It does call for you to put aside many of the things that you believe in and have done in your path to this place. It does not say you have to stop believing in them. No-one would ask or require that of you but what it does require, as Speaker, is that you put the chamber first. As members have pointed out, it is little wonder there is still such a lack of respect for this place when members of this place do not treat it with the seriousness that it deserves. We make the laws but we do not believe that we should have to ask people to uphold the laws. That contradiction cannot stand. If you do not have the deep-seated reverence for the position of Speaker then you should vacate it.
We are going to have a bit of debate later on about me stepping aside as the deputy chair of PAC. I do not believe I can continue in that role because of things that occurred. If you cannot uphold and have the deep-seated reverence for the seat in the parliament, the Speaker, then you should leave. You should leave voluntarily and do what you want to do. I do not agree with some of the things you say but I confirm your right to do those things. But you cannot use the office of the Speaker, the resources of the Speaker, the prestige that comes to a Speaker, for your own political ends. It is unacceptable.
That is why Mr Seselja’s motion should get up. It is quite clear it will not. Those opposite have said, “We have got problems but the punishment is too severe.” There is only black and white in this as far as I am concerned. I think if you cannot uphold the dignity of the place then you must go. If you have not got the deep-seated reverence, you should voluntarily resign. But if you will not, we should have this motion.
The motion will not get up. That is why I have moved the amendment that says that we delete the words “expresses its ongoing confidence in the capacity of the Speaker to perform his duties fairly and impartially”, because both the Chief Minister and Minister Corbell have said that you have behaved unwisely; therefore they cannot have confidence. But if it is not no-confidence, perhaps it should be censure. That is the next step down. This place should censure the Speaker as it would censure anyone else who does not take it seriously. And that is what we should do today.
You can talk about the new paradigm until you are blue in the face but Westminster survives largely on its unwritten traditions. One of those traditions is the impartiality of the Speaker and that when the Speaker speaks he speaks on behalf of the house. You do not speak on my behalf or on any resolution of this place to support the illegal activity at the CSIRO headquarters. You have a conflict. You must disavow what you have said or you should have the courage of your convictions and resign.
But what you must have as Speaker is, first and foremost, the dignity of this place in mind in all that you do. What you have not done is have due regard to that dignity. That dignity is important. It does protect us. It does make the Westminster system work. It does allow us to do our job. But if we all do not protect that dignity, led by you, Mr Speaker, then no-one should feel obliged to have any respect for this place. If we do not respect the members’ code of conduct, if we do not respect the position of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video