House debates
Tuesday, 28 February 2017
Personal Explanations
3:16 pm
Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Does the member for Gilmore claim to have been misrepresented?
Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Yes, I have; most grievously.
Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, during question time today the Labor Party sought to misinterpret my words of support for workers and small business in my electorate. I will not be intimidated. I will always stand up for people, workers and small businesses in Gilmore, especially when there is a youth unemployment rate of nearly 20 per cent. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Isaacs has already been warned.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs has already been warned. I do not care if he is exasperated or if he did not hear. Everyone hears him—very clearly.
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I may well have a similar point of order in a moment. I do not know if you want me to wait until after the member for Chisholm. Under standing order 68, in making a personal explanation a member must explain how they have been misrepresented, not simply say they did not like what was said.
Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Read it all! Read it all!
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The comments that were made in question time were directly from an Illawarra Mercury report, and the personal explanations are for, at page 497—
Honourable members interjecting—
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
No. The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat, and everyone can cease interjecting for a second. I am going to hear from the member for Chisholm in a second. I am going to make a very obvious point to the Manager of Opposition Business. Members have the opportunity. They need to go to where they were misrepresented—that is true—and their remarks need to be concise. There has always been a degree of leniency in there. If he wants that to disappear, it will disappear from today. I think he knows what he was talking about with past instances from that side of the House. I am just making a very practical point. The nature of question time is, where a 30-second question is asked and then there is a three-minute response, it is just a statistical fact that most of these will come from the opposition side. I have always been lenient because I want to let people have a say. If you want that to disappear, it can disappear from today.
3:19 pm
Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr Speaker.
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Does the member for Chisholm claim to have been misrepresented?
Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Most grievously, Mr Speaker.
Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The premise of the question of the member for Bruce—
Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The premise? The vibe!
Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
misrepresented the context of my interview on Sky today. I answered a question which I believed asked if I would be disappointed if the government overturned the decision—
Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What was the vibe of the question?
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Chisholm can just resume her seat for a second. The member for Shortland can leave under 94(a). The member for Chisholm can start again.
The member for Shortland then left the chamber.
Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The premise of the question of the member for Bruce misrepresented the context of my interview on Sky today. I answered a question which I believed asked me if I would be disappointed with the government if we overturned the Fair Work Commission decision. I said I would be disappointed as that would not happen; we are a consistent government and we do what we say. I then gave the example of the CFA and how, when this government did intervene with the Fair Work Commission, we delivered on what we said we would do—save 60,000 volunteers.
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Chisholm has gone to where she was misrepresented.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting —
I say to the member for Isaacs, I just do not know how often I can warn him. I really do not.
Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is an abuse of the forms of the—
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Well, you can leave under 94(a). That is an abuse of the forms of the House. I have warned you already. I warned you earlier today. I warned you at about five past 12. I certainly asked you to stop interjecting.
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
3:20 pm
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to table a transcript of today's Sky News interview where the member for Chisholm answers the question, 'Will you be explaining to your electorate that these cuts to penalty rates are a good thing?'
Leave not granted.