Page 1268 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR SPEAKER: Order! One moment, Mr Coe. I find myself in a difficult position here, but it is a dissent motion. It is not a motion of no confidence. Let us try to constrain the debate just a little, shall we?
MR COE: Well, Mr Speaker, the decision you made was unprofessional. This decision, I think, has landed this place in a situation whereby there are seemingly gross inconsistencies with the rulings that are made. It is funny; when Mr Seselja first started his speech, the Speaker, in the Speaker’s chair, was shaking his head. I find that quite interesting—that the impartial Speaker, the Speaker who is supposedly above politics, would do something like that. He has not declared a conflict of interest on this issue, and why not? Why not? How can he possibly seek to advocate for transparency, for integrity, for honesty when he cannot even find the courage to say that there may be a conflict of interest on this issue?
I wonder whether, if the roles were reversed here and one of us on this side of the chamber was making a decision on something in which we had a similar interest to that which the Speaker has on this issue, this chamber would be asking us to declare a conflict of interest.
There is a distinct lack of professionalism across the board on this issue. To take the arguments put forward to their conclusion, it shows that people do not have confidence in the judges in the Supreme Court. It shows that the then Speaker, the Deputy Speaker of this place, was either negligent or was wrong. It shows that other people in this place who did not raise any issue were either negligent or complacent.
There is a lot of politics in this issue. I think that is the key driver here. The key driver here is not a precedent. It is not convention; it is politics. I think the situation that the Speaker has got himself into is one that is going to be very hard to reverse out of. But I call upon the Speaker to think of a way that this can be resolved that is consistent with the forms of this place.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (10.44): Yes, Mr Coe, there is a lot of politics here. I think that Mr Smyth is the only one of the Canberra Liberals who has spoken who has actually addressed the standing orders. Again, Mr Coe, Mr Seselja and Mr Hanson did not address the standing orders at all. I just remind the Canberra Liberals again that we have heard a number of times that this is advice from the Clerk that the Speaker is acting on—again, a point you did not address in any of your speeches.
I would also go to the responsibility issue. Again, as we said today, the Speaker was acting on a call from Mr Corbell to go back and review what had occurred. It is clear in the Companion to the Standing Orders—I will read that out for the benefit of the Canberra Liberals again; it is something which they also have not addressed—what the responsibility of the Speaker is. It is outlined in the Companion when the Speaker is asked to actually go and seek advice on a matter. It says:
The Speaker has the responsibility of maintaining order in the Assembly; upon any question of order being raised and being stated to the Speaker, the Speaker must make a ruling on the matter. A ruling is a decision or determination made by the Speaker on a matter to do with the business or operation of the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video