Page 1292 - Week 04 - Thursday, 8 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
unparliamentary language. I think it is a pretty accurate description of exactly what occurred. I would ask you if you could just––
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you going to withdraw it, Mr Hanson?
Mr Hanson: I have asked you the question: is it now going to be on the list of unparliamentary phrases? Why else am I withdrawing it?
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: I told you why I think you ought to withdraw it. I think it is a reflection on Mr Corbell’s character. Are you going to withdraw it?
Mr Hanson: I agree it probably is. I withdraw.
Mr Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, on standing order 73: is that now a ruling on the word—that “sanctimonious” is unparliamentary language?
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek the Clerk’s advice on this at a later stage, but at this point I am saying that I believe it is a reflection. I believe it is a reflection on Mr Corbell’s character. I do not mind from which side of the floor this kind of language comes from. I am just saying that I believe that that is a reflection on the person’s character. I was quite disturbed by it when it was said before. I thought that I might call it before, but I did not, but as it continues I feel more uncomfortable with it. Now we are at the point where you have withdrawn.
Question resolved in the affirmative, with the concurrence of an absolute majority.
Detail stage
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1, amendment 1.1.
MR WALL (Brindabella) (12.00): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 1335].
Madam Speaker, the amendment seeks to omit the ability for a legal practitioner of five years experience from being appointed as an adjudicator on a matter of disciplinary action. Whilst I accept the merit of the amendment as a whole to expand the criteria of those eligible to be appointed from simply a magistrate to a magistrate or a judge, current or former, I think they are suitably qualified professionals with an apt amount of experience to preside over such severe issues.
Just to put into context what the role of the adjudicator is in the process of disciplinary actions, initially, once a disciplinary action has been initiated, the individual may choose to appeal that, and that is normally an internal review appeal process overseen by a corrections officer. Should there be a request for a further review of the decision, the director-general of corrections is actually the next individual required to provide a further inquiry into the issue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video