Page 2002 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 7 June 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
chamber is one of such inconsistency that it is now important that we raise these issues. Earlier today you asked that Mr Hanson withdraw the word—I think “grubby” was the word.
Mr Hanson: It was “dodgy”.
MRS DUNNE: Sorry, the word was “dodgy”—which he did. I raised the question as to whether it was necessarily appropriate to do that, because I did not think that he was referring to a member of this place; he was referring to other things but not to a member of this place. But you made a ruling and I eventually agreed to that ruling.
That would have been unremarkable except for the fact that, under pressure, Mr Rattenbury then called every one of the members of the opposition “grubby”. It was quite clear. There was no ambiguity about whom he was referring to. He actually said that members of the opposition were grubby and this was a grubby display. There was no ambiguity. I thought that, to be fair, on this occasion you should have required the withdrawal of those comments. The fact that you did not require the withdrawal of those comments shows that this ruling was a partial ruling; that you were not exercising your powers in the chair in an impartial manner, in a way that shows that you have significant regard for all members in this place and that all members in this place are treated equally.
We have had this discussion privately on a number of occasions. I know that it is a difficult thing to do to keep order in question time. I also know, recognise and appreciate that your approach to this is different from what mine was when I was the Speaker. Everyone is entitled to do this in their own way. But, when it comes to the things that were said here today and the way that you treated Mr Hanson as compared to the way that you treated Mr Rattenbury, it is quite clear for any unbiased observer to see that you have a different set of rules.
Mr Hanson may be an irritant. He was an irritant when I was the Speaker and he is clearly an irritant to you in this place. But Mr Rattenbury can equally be an irritant—he was an irritant for me when I was the Speaker—because he knows how to use the rules, because he himself has been the Speaker. Mr Rattenbury, I am sure, if you had required him to withdraw would have withdrawn, because he would have known that what he had said was overstepping the mark. But the fact that you did not ask him to withdraw shows that you have less regard for the opposition than you do for members of the government and members of the crossbench; and this is not how you conduct yourself as Speaker.
We have had discussions about things that we have disagreed about on the approach that you take. I am sure that when you were Deputy Speaker and I was Speaker you disagreed with some of the approaches I took, and we have had those discussions as well.
It is actually an interesting point to make that you picked up on Mr Hanson’s supposed unparliamentary language but when you did not pick up on Mr Rattenbury—even when it was brought to your attention—you still did not see it as sufficient to take the appropriate steps.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video