Page 574 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Corbell: Point of order.
MADAM SPEAKER: Point of order, Mr Corbell. Mr Doszpot, could you sit down while there is a point of order?
Mr Corbell: Madam Speaker, to suggest I am promoting religious vilification is offensive. It is disorderly and it is casting aspersions on me which are not permitted by the standing orders. I would ask you to ask Mr Doszpot to withdraw.
MADAM SPEAKER: On the point of order, Mr Doszpot, if you are reading from notes could you read what you said again, please?
MR DOSZPOT: Certainly. Madam Speaker, this motion proposed today by Mr Corbell can be summed up in a few words. It represents religious discrimination, religious intolerance and religious vilification.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Doszpot. Could you sit down? This puts me in a difficult position. I think that the words do not reflect on Mr Corbell directly but on his motion. But in the spirit of the way that I would like this debate to be conducted, and so as not to be seen to offend Mr Corbell, I would like you to withdraw any imputation that Mr Corbell is involved in religious vilification. Your remarks should be directed to the motion and not to the person.
MR DOSZPOT: Can I seek clarification, Madam Speaker?
MADAM SPEAKER: So what I am asking is that—
MR DOSZPOT: Can I say—
MADAM SPEAKER: Sorry, to provide clarification, what I am asking, Mr Doszpot, is that you make it clear that your comments are about the motion—
MR DOSZPOT: Not Mr Corbell.
MADAM SPEAKER: and do not reflect on the members themselves.
MR DOSZPOT: Madam Speaker, this motion today can be summed up in a few words. It represents religious discrimination, religious intolerance and religious vilification. Mr Corbell, through this motion—
Mr Corbell: Point of order. I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker, but you cannot draw a distinction between what the motion says and the motivation of me as the proposer of the motion. It is a clear imputation. It is unparliamentary. I do not think it is helpful for Mr Doszpot to seek to suggest that I, as the mover of this motion, am proposing words that amount to religious vilification. That is an imputation on my motivations and my character. It is offensive to me. I would ask that Mr Doszpot not be allowed to make his argument in those terms because it is an imputation on me as the proposer of the motion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video