Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 13 Hansard (Wednesday, 13 December 2006) . . Page.. 4071 ..

Auditor-General’s findings in relation to the EpiCentre auction process”. The questions are clearly out of order, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: The minister is entitled to speak on it but he just can’t anticipate the debate on the matter. He is entitled to speak; he can’t interfere with the committee’s deliberations on the matter or—

Mr Smyth: I’m talking about a notice later today.

MR SPEAKER: So far as the motion before the chamber is concerned, he is entitled to respond to the question but he just cannot anticipate debate in relation to those. So Mr Corbell will not be anticipating debate.

Mr Stanhope: Mr Speaker, I would like to seek some clarification on your ruling. You would be aware that notice No 4 on the notice paper today relates to a motion proposed by Mrs Dunne in relation to the policy statement Towards 2020. Do I take it on the basis of your ruling that there cannot be any questions in this place to the minister for education on the policy 2020 while ever this motion remains on the notice paper?

MR SPEAKER: No, you can’t take that. All that you can take from what I have said so far is that the minister, if asked a question, cannot anticipate debate arising from that motion that is on the notice paper.

Mr Stanhope: It would be simply impossible for the minister to answer any question on the policy position of Towards 2020 without anticipating debate on Mrs Dunne’s motion.

Mrs Dunne: So you’ve got a dixer, have you?

Mr Stanhope: No, I am just clearing this up. I just want it to be understood that this motion will not be debated today and it will not be debated tomorrow and it may not be debated in February. I am just clarifying that there will be no questions in this place on school closures until this motion is removed, which may not be for another three or four months.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Stanhope, if there is displeasure about the standing orders, they may need to be changed.

Mr Stanhope: No, no. I was just seeking clarification. I now have it and we will now object to every single question on schools—

MR SPEAKER: Questions may be asked to elicit information regarding business pending on the notice paper but discussion must not be anticipated.

MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If the government had forgone $70 million that would have meant that the site would have sold for $109 million. Of course Dr Foskey is happy to base her unfounded claims on the views of a number of unnamed Canberra businesspeople rather than the views of qualified valuers—

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .