Page 4172 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 24 October 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you. That is not particularly flattering—
Mr Hanson: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I asked yesterday, after withdrawing, that you examine whether “bad boss” is actually unparliamentary or not. Have you had a chance to have a look at that?
MADAM SPEAKER: I have had a look at Hansard. There was reference in a debate that referenced other parliaments and an example of being bad in the sense of IR, but it has not been used in this place across the chamber. Your reference yesterday, the interjection, was to the minister, implying that she was not managing her portfolio and she had no interest in her portfolio and these matters of violence against teachers. I took it as a reference to her character. Therefore, yesterday I considered it to be unparliamentary and out of order. If you want me to trawl Hansard over the past 10 years for the term “bad boss”, I am happy to do it, but it will take some time.
Mr Hanson: Madam Speaker, in your guidance there, you just said that it was unparliamentary because I had implied that she was not doing a good job as a minister. If the standard by which we are going to be judged is that the opposition is not allowed to imply that a minister is not doing their job adequately, then I would suggest that much of what an opposition would say would be out of order. It is extraordinary that any implication of a minister not doing their job is going to be unparliamentary.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, I will ask you to resume your seat, please. It is around context. Yesterday I considered it to be an imputation on the minister’s reputation. In fact, on any day, on both sides of the chamber, I could rule just about any bit of language to be out of order, certainly disrespectful. I think I have been in this chair long enough to say, “Can we show regard and respect across the floor?” It is not just those on my left; those on my right are known to be disrespectful as well. There is theatre and there is animation in this place, as there ought to be. But sometimes I will make a call. And I will make the call, Mr Hanson.
Animals—dangerous dogs
MS LAWDER: My question is to the Minister for City Services. Minister, in an article in this morning’s Canberra Times you expressed concern that the pound would become overcrowded if more dangerous dogs were seized. Last year there were 485 reported dog attacks. Reported dog attacks have increased on average 30 per cent per year over the past five years. Minister, does DAS have adequate staff and infrastructure to cope with this growing problem of dangerous dogs if it continues to increase at that rate?
MR STEEL: I thank the member for her question. Yes, we have increased the number of animal rangers at Domestic Animal Services to meet the needs of our growing city. We will continue to monitor that. Of course, under the opposition’s proposed legislation, hundreds of dogs would need to be seized while investigations took place. We do have quite legitimate concerns about what the capacity of DAS would be should that bill be passed. We will certainly be raising that during the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video