Page 953 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There is no other rational explanation. He is an Assistant Speaker. His job is not to rule on what is appropriate behaviour during question time. That is the job of the Speaker. It is quite clear when you draw the analogy with perhaps Mrs Dunne running a commentary on the government’s performance during question time—because their role is to answer questions—that it is quite inappropriate. So perhaps Mrs Dunne, when she assumes the chair after question time tomorrow, should sit there and give a bit of a view on what she thought about question time and whether Ms Burch did not answer enough questions appropriately or whether Ms Gallagher was repetitious or whether Dr Bourke failed to answer a couple of questions.
I think that this gives her the precedent to do that. Quite clearly, that is the name of the game—that we basically invite our assistant speakers to get up in the chair and give a bit of an analysis on how question time went. We can have Mr Hargreaves say, “Boo hoo; the opposition were outrageous in the number of interjections.” Mrs Dunne can then get up in the chair and say how dreadful the government were in their answering of questions. Of course we cannot have that, Mr Speaker. But that is essentially what we are inviting today if we do not move that the Assembly has no confidence in Mr Hargreaves.
I welcome the comments made by Mr Seselja and Mr Smyth. I am very disappointed again that, rather than actually going to the substance of the issues, from the Greens we have this plea: “Can’t we all forgive? Can’t we all get on? Can’t we all just be nice?” I say to Ms Le Couteur and the Greens: this is about how we conduct ourselves in this place, particularly how we do it as Assistant Speaker. Quite clearly Mr Hargreaves has abused his position. He has been spoken to by the Speaker. He has got into that chair and politicised the position or has had a crack at the Speaker and reflected on him. Either way, it is unacceptable.
Mr Hargreaves, in making his speech, essentially proved the case that we are trying to make. In his speech he continued on and had a rant about the opposition and how he did not like what we were doing. He could have done that in an adjournment debate and it would have been appropriate. He could have done it as a Labor backbencher, saying, “Hey, I counted up during question time today all of the interjections that were made and isn’t Hanson not a nice chap for doing that?” He could have done that and that would have been fine. That is the nature of adjournment debates. But he cannot do that as Assistant Speaker. That is why, Mr Speaker, you have spoken to him. You cannot let him continue on in that role having done that. He is not an inexperienced member of the Assembly. He has been here longer than most members.
It is quite clear that we will not get support today for this motion because the Greens have again proved that, when it comes to matters of holding to account anyone in this place who is part of the Greens-Labor alliance, even when they have had to be spoken to by the Speaker, they will just let it slide.
The only time any action seems to be taken against the appalling behaviour that we see from those opposite is when it gets to such a threshold of intolerance that Mr Hargreaves has to resign. Perhaps it will get to that point. I fear that we will be back here in due course. It seems that this is a man who is so reckless and with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video