Page 2199 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
find, because of the effect of continuing resolution 10 and because of your overly proscriptive ruling when it comes to this, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that we have a situation where something which is quite literally a matter of life and death to this community cannot be discussed in this place. It is ridiculous.
I go to the Companion to the Standing Orders. I refer to page 174, paragraph 10.102. It says:
Legislatures should not join a rush to the lowest common denominator of acceptable practice.
I would agree with that, and you can see from Mrs Dunne’s most judicious comments, her careful comments, that she has certainly not done that. Nor would the opposition support anybody doing so. But I will continue reading:
However, they would be foolish to deny themselves the opportunity to debate important matters of public concern by the rigid application of a convention rendered redundant by the actions of others.
It is saying that if this is a matter that is being debated by others in the community—as it is, extensively, on TV, in the print media, on blogs and so on—it has been rendered redundant by others. This is no secret. If the facts of the matter are before the community, we would be foolish—according to our companion, we would be foolish—to deny ourselves the opportunity to debate these important matters of public concern.
Essentially, if we were to agree with your ruling, we would be foolish. Ipso facto, Madam Deputy Speaker, should you rule that we cannot discuss these important matters of public concern, which indeed are rendered redundant by the actions of others, your ruling would be foolish. That is what the Companion says—that your ruling would be foolish. That is what it says. I invite you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to pick up the Companion, to read the Companion, to see what it says about your ruling. It cannot be interpreted in any other way than that it is a foolish ruling. I will read it for you one more time, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I note that you have not chosen to get the Companion or to read it:
However, they would be foolish to deny themselves the opportunity to debate important matters of public concern by the rigid application of a convention rendered redundant by the actions of others.
Unless you think that is wrong, I cannot see how your ruling could be deemed to be other than foolish.
The final point I would make is this. This again highlights the seriousness with which the opposition takes the situation where the Speaker of this house, who should be ruling on important matters such as this, or certainly having an influence on them, in an uninfluenced position as a Speaker, and providing, perhaps, advice on things like continuing resolution 10 and whether it is, by nature of its wording, constraining debate in this place, and whether that makes us foolish, as the standing orders would suggest, whilst we are having this debate, debating this part of the Greens—he has
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video