Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 14 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 5823..
The minister can obviously speak again—he can speak to these amendments as many times as he likes—and he could stand up and quote that fact from his survey and confirm that what I have said is true. But I bet he will not.
The other thing the minister will not do is stand up and quote from the regulatory impact study. And I notice he has not tabled it. I assume he has a copy of it. I assume he has seen it because he is the minister that supposedly took it through cabinet after the event. It is a very interesting process when a minister behaves in this way. He has an impact statement. He refuses to release it. It casts a doubt on him. He says he is using scientific fact. But the fact from his own survey says he is wrong—
Ms Le Couteur: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
MR SMYTH: and yet we do not get a straight answer from this minister.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Ms Le Couteur.
Ms Le Couteur: I understand under standing order 58 that the debate has to be relevant to the matter under consideration. We are considering, I believe, an amendment which talks about changing a couple of dates. This is not what Mr Smyth was talking about.
MR SMYTH: To the point of order—
Opposition members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Give me a moment, Mr Smyth. Thank you, Ms Le Couteur. Whilst I think you are technically correct, I have given this debate quite a bit of latitude and I think it is probably too late to uphold that point of order. Mr Smyth, you have the floor.
MR SMYTH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hypocrisy is noted: if the Liberals stray from what the Greens think is the point of the debate, we are called to order by the Greens. But, when Mr Corbell does it, does it deliberately and does it twice in response to Mr Seselja—of course the alliance is strong, the Greens-Labor coalition is strong: "We stand up for our coalition allies"—
Mr Hanson: Never been stronger.
MR SMYTH: It has never been stronger, according to Mr Stanhope. Of course, they are not called to account. And the public know of this hypocrisy. I think they voted on it in Victoria recently. But the point is that the minister has a report that he refuses to release and you have to ask the question why. We will give him leave to table the report any time he wants. If he wants to adjourn the debate now so he can bring it back after question time, we will do that for him; we will give him that courtesy. But I do not think anyone will ever see the regulatory impact statement—because there must be something in it that the minister does not like. There must be something that he does not want people to know. Otherwise he would be using it. If it was fair