Page 859 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Seselja: If you are going to give Mr Hargreaves latitude to hurl abuse at us, we will respond from time to time. And that was what I was doing. So I think perhaps if there are going to be warnings, maybe they should be going both ways.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, on the point of order, I said I had a different understanding of the way in which the standing order applied to the way in which it has been ruled this morning, at which point Mr Seselja hurled across the chamber, “Get Simon to withdraw the motion.” That is not me throwing out some sort of a temptation to those opposite.
Mr Hanson: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, this is a rewriting of history. Mr Hargreaves was hurling abuse, saying things like, “You’re a schoolboy.” He was clearly having a go at Mr Seselja across the chamber and is now trying to litigate that this was just part of the debate. He was speaking directly in contravention of standing order 42 to vilify Mr Seselja. I think it is only appropriate that Mr Seselja should respond, and that was the point Mr Seselja was making.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you for the feedback. Members, there is no point of order. I was clear to Mr Seselja that I asked the interjecting to stop. I asked him twice. I used his name twice and then he interjected again. I think that is crossing the threshold. Mr Hargreaves, you have the floor to continue.
MR HARGREAVES: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to talk about my understanding of the way the standing order was written and, indeed, what the intention of the original amendment to those standing orders was. It was that where a member was appointed to the position of whip by his or her element of the chamber, that would be an automatic membership of the committee rather than the need for an appointment by the chamber, because the idea was, as, indeed, the Speaker’s appointment as chair of the administration and procedure committee is, that it is not something that the chamber does, that it is an automatic thing because it is listed in the standing orders.
My understanding is that the standing order says that the composition of the administration and procedure committee shall be the Speaker and, now, the whips of the elements of the chamber. And there are provisions if the crossbenches are of a different composition. But my understanding was that the moment, in fact, that somebody was appointed a whip, they were automatically a member of the administration and procedure committee, such that they could participate in deliberations of that committee in between sittings. I did not believe the standing orders required the ratification by the chamber. I thought it was just an automatic thing, such that if we have somebody resign as a whip, as we did have, the next appointee is an automatic member of the committee.
I would ask, Mr Speaker, if you would perhaps consult at some time at your leisure with the Clerk and see whether or not our interpretations are in fact inconsistent with each other, whether they are consistent and, perhaps, either privately or at a stage in the chamber—it might happen privately—just let me know what you really think about that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video