Page 3398 - Week 10 - Thursday, 20 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON: Let me be frank, I am much more disappointed about the substance of what is actually going to happen today rather than the process. It has a been a shabby process, but that is in some sense far less problematic than the consequence of the devastating effect of getting more meth on our streets. So we do not support this perversion of standing orders that has happened today.
MS STEPHEN-SMITH (Kurrajong—Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Minister for Families and Community Services and Minister for Health) (10.26): I would point out to Mr Hanson that this bill has been debated in principle a couple of times already in this Assembly. It was very, very clear that it was going to come back to be debated in detail as soon as it was able to be. In fact, I said publicly weeks ago in relation to what was coming up in the Assembly that passing the budget was our first priority. As Mr Rattenbury pointed out, the budget debate is for the opposition to make its points on the budget. We obviously speak to the fantastic initiatives in our budget but that debate has concluded. I have been very clear publicly that this was a priority to bring on once the budget debate was concluded. I think it is a furphy for Mr Hanson to argue that it has taken him by surprise in any way.
MR BRADDOCK (Yerrabi) (10.27): Going to the actual process of the question here, we will leave the substance for the later debate, if an executive wishes to utilise their time and wishes to debate a particular piece of legislation, then—
Mr Hanson: Private members business.
MR BRADDOCK: It is the executive’s call as to what it decides to debate during its time. So let us have the debate.
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (10.28): As Mr Hanson has already said, we will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders today for a number of reasons. This is not good process. I understand that it is based on the precedent of bringing back the motion from Mr Braddock about land sales in Gungahlin town centre which set a precedent in this place. At that time we argued this was poor practice. This is not the way things are and should be done in our Assembly. It is an abuse of the standing orders. I sought advice from the Clerk at the time of Mr Braddock’s motion coming back on in a suspension of standing orders. At that time the advice from the Clerk was this had not been done before. This had not been done before and it is an abuse of standing orders. It is not good practice. In my experience here, the Braddock motion coming back on was the first time. Now it seems as though the government is going to do this over and over again, whenever it suits them, because they want to finish up the debate on the day because the Chief Minister has to get to a dinner or whatever it is, which means they do not want to continue debate—whether they have not had enough discussions amongst themselves beforehand to know what they are going to do with it. But it is clearly a breach. We meet each week of a sitting week in a committee to determine the business of the coming week. This quite clearly gives the government, the Labor-Greens government and the Labor-Greens members, the opportunity to bring on as many things as they like. Not only the ones that take up a slot, as we say, but to bring on other motions that have been adjourned, usually adjourned without any prior reference to the Liberals or discussion or notice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video