Page 4352 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Hargreaves: Mr Hanson has made the point about the success or otherwise of those opposite and now he has gone on and on and on about it. Would you please bring him back to the substantive motion?
MR HANSON: On the—
MR SPEAKER: One moment—on the point of order, Mr Hanson?
MR HANSON: On the point of order, certainly. What I am trying to point to here is the motive of people in this place for having moved or supported this point of order and to make the point that it is not based on substance, it is not based on evidence, it is not based on argument; this is a politically motivated attack. I am trying to point to that point in my speech.
Mr Corbell: On the point of order—
MR SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, Mr Hanson. Mr Corbell on the point of order.
Mr Corbell: On the point of order, Mr Hanson is doing more than that. Mr Hanson is reflecting on previous debates and seeking to re-prosecute previous debates. It is one thing to highlight how members have voted in the past; it is another to make assertions about substantive matters in those debates, which is exactly what he is doing. The Assembly has already concluded its views on those matters, and if Mr Hanson is upset by that that is really just his hard luck.
Mr Seselja: Mr Speaker, on the point of order.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Seselja.
Mr Seselja: It is quite legitimate when there is a very serious motion, a censure motion, before the Assembly for a member, in making the case as to why a censure should or should not be supported, to point to other censure motions and whether they have been supported. There is a precedent in these things and there is nothing wrong with a member referring to the way the Assembly has looked at other things, in order to make the case as to why this censure should not be supported.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you. There is no point of order at this stage, although, Mr Hanson, I was actually just seeking advice from the Clerk when Mr Hargreaves intervened. I did fear you were about to start re-prosecuting some of those matters, so I would ask you to avoid that possibility.
MR HANSON: Yes, and I certainly will not. I am not talking about the substance of cases. What I am talking about is the number of cases and the detail that has been provided in those cases, without going to the substance of the matter. For example, one of the matters, and I will not go into the detail of it, was a motion of censure that I moved and it was five pages long on the notice paper—five pages of detail, of evidence, of argument, making the case. I will just make the point that the Greens try to assert in this place that the previous Liberal motions have not had any substance, or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video