Were they holding papers over their heads at 1:14:51 due to that ancient British custom of being required to wear a hat if raising a point of order at certain unusual times? As in, during a division.
Yes, at the time during a division a hat was required to be worn for a point of order to be raised. This was because in order to vote in a division you had to be seated, and to raise a point of order would require you to stand. So they just put paper on their head and the speaker would interpret that they were wearing a hat to raise a point of order.
I remember this vividly. And, despite the often-ridiculous nature of the whole fiasco, I remember it fondly. The fondness comes from the far superior intellect of the politicians (most of them, anyway) than the politicians of 2024 in Australia (and elsewhere). Reith, Beazley, McMullen, Abbott are all far cleverer (notwithstanding their political persuasions) than the likes of Albanese, Dutton, etc. Sadly, Jenny Macklin and Cheryl Kernot let the side down. One observation which is not a fond one, is the Speaker's role in all this. The ALP was right to dissent from Speaker Andrew's decisions during this sitting of Parliament. Like other speakers, such as Jenkins Jr, for example, Andrew was weak when the Liberals were at fault. Thank you for posting this. For me, it was a fabulous trip down political Memory Lane.
WAIT, sorry to sound like a Karen, but why are they praying in the house? I thought parliament in Australia was completely separate to all religion. Weird to me
Because it is part of the tradition of the house. Just like its tradition these days to have a welcome to country ceremony even though you are in a country called Australia.
5:20 speaker says "i have had no conversation with the minister for employment services other than the one i relayed to the opposition leader yesterday evening.." 11:02 "following that, i spoke briefly to the minister for employment services who was in transit to melbourne, and i indicated to him that the house would be facilitated if he would come into the chamber and make a personal explanation" Whichever way you cut it, this looks shifty and/or done for performance. IDK if the speaker misled the house here and couldn't keep his story straight about not being in cahoots with Abbott not facing proper censure for his comments, or whether he actually did inform Kim about the personal explanation time possibly being allotted the next day which was perhaps what he was referring to 5 min in.. equally, seems like Kim maybe pretended that wasn't just told to him and he just wanted to go with his preplanned tactic to move a motion to have Abbott apologise and it seems like no one else other than Kim and the direct people concerned knew what the speaker and Abbott had in mind, because why else would everyone on the opposition side act so shocked when the speaker went to do the thing he was always going to do with calling on Abbott to make an explanation and not an apology that Kim had only just requested probably without much notice? it's just a bit unhinged. Then they move dissent but if they waited until after the explanation they might have gotten the apology. Not through moving a motion because they don't have the numbers, but just asking the speaker to require him to formally withdraw and apologise properly. And tbh Cheryl Kernot did deserve an apology but because of how this was all done, she never actually got one.
Thoroughly enjoyed this. Thanks for the upload
Great history. Thanks for providing
Ngl the ticker showing the name, party & position back then was nuch better than today
Were they holding papers over their heads at 1:14:51 due to that ancient British custom of being required to wear a hat if raising a point of order at certain unusual times? As in, during a division.
Yes, at the time during a division a hat was required to be worn for a point of order to be raised. This was because in order to vote in a division you had to be seated, and to raise a point of order would require you to stand. So they just put paper on their head and the speaker would interpret that they were wearing a hat to raise a point of order.
Yes, and in the British Parliament they wore a top hat. Because of the anachronistic nature of the practice they got rid of it in 2001.
Geeez, Tony had no shame even in those days.
20:25 If there's one thing I can agree with the speaker on here, this is it.
Did he say where’s my hat?
I heard “oh, my head”
I remember this vividly. And, despite the often-ridiculous nature of the whole fiasco, I remember it fondly. The fondness comes from the far superior intellect of the politicians (most of them, anyway) than the politicians of 2024 in Australia (and elsewhere). Reith, Beazley, McMullen, Abbott are all far cleverer (notwithstanding their political persuasions) than the likes of Albanese, Dutton, etc. Sadly, Jenny Macklin and Cheryl Kernot let the side down. One observation which is not a fond one, is the Speaker's role in all this. The ALP was right to dissent from Speaker Andrew's decisions during this sitting of Parliament. Like other speakers, such as Jenkins Jr, for example, Andrew was weak when the Liberals were at fault. Thank you for posting this. For me, it was a fabulous trip down political Memory Lane.
Wilson tuckey was awful here. Being verbally abusive n threatening to a lnp member who crossed the floor
as bad as bishop
Bishop was worse.
WAIT, sorry to sound like a Karen, but why are they praying in the house? I thought parliament in Australia was completely separate to all religion. Weird to me
Because it is part of the tradition of the house. Just like its tradition these days to have a welcome to country ceremony even though you are in a country called Australia.
Despite his horrendous bias, this guy is actually a fairly decent speaker.
wow, what an incompetent speaker
Look no! Im going to keep trying until your like mark rattner, my
What a joke!
And it hasn't improved much since . !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMFG Reith here was *shameless*.
This is funded by our taxes :)
Simple living and hight thinking...
So this is where tax dollars go...
Awesome
5:20 speaker says "i have had no conversation with the minister for employment services other than the one i relayed to the opposition leader yesterday evening.."
11:02 "following that, i spoke briefly to the minister for employment services who was in transit to melbourne, and i indicated to him that the house would be facilitated if he would come into the chamber and make a personal explanation"
Whichever way you cut it, this looks shifty and/or done for performance.
IDK if the speaker misled the house here and couldn't keep his story straight about not being in cahoots with Abbott not facing proper censure for his comments, or whether he actually did inform Kim about the personal explanation time possibly being allotted the next day which was perhaps what he was referring to 5 min in..
equally, seems like Kim maybe pretended that wasn't just told to him and he just wanted to go with his preplanned tactic to move a motion to have Abbott apologise and it seems like no one else other than Kim and the direct people concerned knew what the speaker and Abbott had in mind, because why else would everyone on the opposition side act so shocked when the speaker went to do the thing he was always going to do with calling on Abbott to make an explanation and not an apology that Kim had only just requested probably without much notice? it's just a bit unhinged. Then they move dissent but if they waited until after the explanation they might have gotten the apology. Not through moving a motion because they don't have the numbers, but just asking the speaker to require him to formally withdraw and apologise properly.
And tbh Cheryl Kernot did deserve an apology but because of how this was all done, she never actually got one.
At that point, the chair was completely without any merit or weight, long before the other bullshit.
Send in the clowns 🤡🤡🤡
RATSAK
NEEDS RAT POISON SPREAD AROUND THE PLACE