Page 951 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
If you are upset by any member on this side of the house and our behaviour, move the substantive motion. You have got the numbers; you can do it any time you want. The Greens will back you up; they always do. I got censured for the tone of a press release—the tone of a press release. That is the standard that you preside over, Chief Minister. So go to your default position. Don’t address the root cause of the problem of poor leadership, weak leadership and lack of standards. But don’t bring the chair down while you do it.
If you need confirmation for support of this motion today, members, you have it in the unprecedented public warning of Mr Hargreaves—through the words in this place, Mr Speaker: that you had to speak to Mr Hargreaves about what he did. I have been here 14 years, and that has never happened before. I have lived in this place with some serial interjectors that make some of the new people here the beginners they are. Mr Berry was the master. To have sat through an Assembly with Mr Berry was in many ways a joy because he was good at his craft. Mr Moore was perhaps one of the most skilled interjectors in this place. So don’t go saying that volume, interjections and these sorts of things are some sort of reason that excuses what Mr Hargreaves did, because they are not. And it is beholden on us to make sure that the standards of this place are maintained.
If you want confirmation of the gravity of the event, it is in the Speaker’s own words. In my 14 years here I do not recall anything of that kind. We have had the Speaker have to come in here and say that he has spoken to Mr Hargreaves about his behaviour. It has never happened before. I checked with the Clerk; the Clerk cannot recall such behaviour either. This is a new low, a low brought about by Mr Hargreaves and his ongoing behaviour. We have confirmation of that behaviour, and the motion should be supported.
The problem is that either we have got a partisan position occupied by the Assistant Speaker or we have no confidence in you, Mr Speaker. If it was not partisan, it was a commentary that you do not have control of the house—that he believes he can do it better and that you should do more about your job. You can deal with Mr Hargreaves in whatever way you want. He says, “I’m not biased,” but by moving to the chair and doing what he did we have a political attack protected by the office of the Speaker. That is what happened. You have rightly counselled him, Mr Speaker; you should rightly remove him from the position.
That this continues is just another almost final straw in Mr Hargreaves’s career. There were three motions against the member in the last sitting fortnight that resulted in his removal from the government whip position. The government do not trust him to be the whip, but we are expected to believe that he is capable of being an Assistant Speaker. Now, there is an interesting standard.
We have seen so many motions. We had a bizarre ruling when, Mr Speaker, you had to come in and change the ruling that Mr Hargreaves had made. It is just another example showing that Mr Hargreaves is not fit to occupy the chair as an Assistant Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video