Page 948 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The other thing I would like to reflect on is what Mr Speaker said in his comments during one of the interminable points of order that were made during Mr Hargreaves’s speech. One of the things that we are discussing here is, in fact, how we conduct discussions in this place. We are talking about what are acceptable standards of behaviour and what is acceptable practice for a Speaker.
Mr Hargreaves has mentioned this, and I think we are all aware of page 13 of the standing orders. It is all about things that people should not do—like interrupt. We should be orderly et cetera. There are a lot of these standing orders which are not just on procedural matters. They are about us trying to behave like civilised human beings. Sometimes I have to say that the debate is not a good reflection of the Assembly.
It is particularly frustrating. This is an election year. In October we are all going to ask the people of Canberra: what do you think? What do you reckon are the big issues going for the ACT? What are the big issues for Canberra? How would you like to see the ACT go forward into the future? I would hope that whatever else the people of Canberra want, they do not want to see 17 people elected and spending their time squabbling and yelling at each other. Unfortunately, for quite a bit of the time that is what we seem to be doing. I think we need to lift our game. I think that it would be great if we started respecting the role of the Speaker, whoever happens to be occupying it at the time, and behaving in accordance with standing orders.
I think this motion is a diversion from getting down to the real business of the Assembly and I do not in any way support it.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.28): It seems that Ms Le Couteur believes that it is a good use of the Assembly’s time for members to be counting interjections, and that is part of what we have seen.
Mr Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the issues that have been put forward by Mr Hargreaves. In many ways, he has made the argument against himself quite well. In responding, he is saying that if he were to have said what he said not in his capacity as chair but in another capacity, he would have been accused of politicisation. That is the very point, isn’t it—that the comments in themselves were so overtly political that they had no place in discussion by someone in the chair? He is free to get up and adjourn the debate and virtually say whatever he likes. And he does. He is free to be as political as he likes. He can criticise his political opponents. He can, within reason, say basically whatever he likes. But when he is in the chair he is expected to have a different standing of behaviour. He is expected to put aside the partisan political aspect and to adjudicate in the fairest manner possible. That is where he has failed today.
I did, on the television, catch the demeaning way in which Mr Hargreaves spoke to Mr Coe. We expect that when he is hurling abuse on the backbench; we get it all the time. But it is a different thing when he is in the chair. Certainly, Mr Speaker, whilst we have, from time to time, had our criticisms of you, I do not ever recall you making those kinds of statements in the chair. I do not ever recall you using derogatory words from the chair against anyone in this place. And if you had, I am sure we would have brought you to account for it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video