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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2010) . . Page.. 2698 ..


MR SESELJA: I laughed in response to you. We were laughing together. It is a rare thing, but we should enjoy it when it happens.

MR SPEAKER: On the point of order, Mr Seselja.

MR SESELJA: Mr Speaker, on the point of order, we have got a report that has been dropped which is being debated cognately.

Mr Smyth interjecting—

MR SESELJA: These are general critiques which have been made by the government in its response to our report. There would seem to be no particular line item where we could relevantly discuss those. As has always been the case, we have to find spots within, and I would have thought the first line might be the opportunity to discuss this. It will be discussed now or it will be discussed later—it really does not matter—but there is no particular line that deals with the government’s response to the estimates report, which went right across portfolios.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Seselja. One moment, please. The source of my amusement, Mr Smyth, was that it seems we are no longer debating the government’s response cognately because we dealt with that question. The report was noted earlier.

MR SESELJA: Mr Speaker, that was not how we were informed in negotiations.

Mr Smyth: Absolutely not, the rules just keep—

MR SPEAKER: Order! I am listening to Mr Seselja.

MR SESELJA: We were told that this would be debated cognately. I do not know if there is the opportunity to suspend standing orders in any way that would allow that, but that has always been the practice. Do they really not want their response debated? Mr Speaker, I seek your advice and the Clerk’s advice on whether there is the opportunity to either suspend standing orders or in some other way debate cognately the response.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Corbell, do you want to comment on this?

Mr Corbell: Yes, Mr Speaker. I think what has happened is that inadvertently the Assembly has agreed to note the government response to the estimates committee report. The Speaker has put the question, and inadvertently the Assembly has agreed to that question. That is not the government’s intention. If you want to recommit the vote, the government will not object to recommitting the vote on that question and simply allow for that debate to be adjourned and then for it to be dealt with cognately. That will require some procedural gymnastics from the Clerk, but the government would have no objection to that process.

MR SPEAKER: Members, what I propose is that Mr Seselja continue with his speech and we address this matter at the end of Mr Seselja’s speech, which I suspect


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