Page 3336 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

And there are a couple of other things under standing order 61.

The Assistant Speaker gave Mr Hanson the call on the understanding that he was seeking a point of order. As he was not moving a point of order, he did not have the call. Therefore his request for adjournment was not valid. As I have been perfectly clear, Mr Barr now has the call to stand up and make his introductory remarks that go with moving his motion, as is very standard procedure in this place. As soon as Mr Barr finishes, Mr Hanson, as I have indicated, has the call if he wishes it, to stand up and move an adjournment. It is perfectly clear.

Mr Seselja: Sorry, just to make it perfectly clear then, is it your ruling that in the standing orders a member cannot stand up and move adjournment when someone is speaking?

MR SPEAKER: Standing order 61 is clear:

A Member may not interrupt another Member … unless:

(a) to call attention to a point of order;

(b) to call attention to the want of a quorum; or

Mr Hanson sought none of those things, so under standing order 61 he does not have the call at that moment. He has the call as soon as Mr Barr finishes.

Mr Seselja: But he was given the call.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, because the Assistant Speaker clearly understood that Mr Hanson was seeking a point of order. That is the basis on which he was given the call. Clearly there was a misunderstanding. He perhaps should not have been given the call, but the impression was that he was seeking a point of order. That is the basis on which he was given the call. Are we right to proceed now, members? Thank you.

MR BARR: The university’s expansion plans will be a great boost to the territory. They will create up to 800 jobs, help the university grow and further enhance the ACT’s education sector.

The government has given all parties notice of its intention to bring on this disallowance today to provide certainty for the university. My understanding is that all the parties understand and support this particular course of action. The level of controversy this morning is a little disappointing but possibly reflects a late night for those opposite. Our intention is to move—

Mr Hanson interjecting—

MR SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, please! You will have your moment in just a second.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video