Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. This is a difficult place—it's been said before; it is said often. This was a difficult case for the Privileges Committee to consider for a multitude of reasons. Obviously we had the job of deciding first off how to protect the integrity of the staff members who had become witnesses how to protect a complainant two MP witnesses and also how to fortify due process for the person accused—one of our own. That is always the case when the Privileges Committee meets and considers these matters but in this case because the concerns were so serious and of a nature that we don't often see there was some delicate and at times really difficult questions to answer.The finding of the fact-finder was not in any way based on the subjective fear or feeling of threat that was felt by Mr Halbert although that was very clearly noted. It was informed by a number of witnesses and it's been traversed by our chair the fact that even staff members had all independently said they were sitting there in their place of work contemplating how best to contact security. It was of course reiterated by those MPs that were in the room.I do want to note that we have had reports over and over again about the culture of this place including details of bullying and much worse. Those conversations still have to happen; they have to be active; processes have to be in place in a way that we don't continue to see reports including from the Privileges Committee. But one of the things that I wanted to highlight is that we have an issue in this place where we are repeatedly faced with allegations of bullying and that this debate should not only be focused on how to preserve the perceived right that we have to—what has been repeated over and over again—robust debate but actually what impact the scale of aggressive debate which is I think what people mean when they say robust" sometimes has on actually silencing other debaters. That is also a huge concern out in society right now. In every forum that political issues are debated there are concerns that those debates are silenced that people are excluded forced out because the debate is—and we can euphemistically call it "robust" but it's aggressive.In this case the finding wasn't that Mr Halbert felt threatened it wasn't just that the witnesses in the room saw the behaviour as threatening but that it was objectively threatening behaviour. That's what we had to sit with and it does happen that it was at such a high degree of breach that it moved over from aggression—and I don't even know if "bullying" as a word would have gotten us over the line but "threatening behaviour" did. So I'm glad that that happened and that we had to ask ourselves where the line is drawn. But I hope that we don't sit back and say "The line is threatening behaviour; is physically blocking an entrance is physically standing over a member is missing the end of the bells"—which happened in this case—"to enter the House." but we have a conversation that's actually about the ways that we treat each other and the ways that this place can be harmful to democracy to democratic debate including in select committees including in this House but also out there because people are watching and they do deserve better of us.So this is a good finding and it's a good process to have had to go through but it absolutely should not be the end of how we look at debate how we define "bullying" how we define "aggression" and how we define "democracy" as an inclusive thing. Thank you.Motion agreed to."