Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4680 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Mr Berry then argued that the suspension of standing orders on a temporary basis was justified because the Government did not have enough business to fill up the day. Now he is saying, "If the Government wants to bring on its business it can negotiate to bring on its business". That seems to be a rather odd position for an alternative government to be arguing from - that the Government has to come to this place and argue the point to be allowed to bring on its business at a time which, ever since the day of self-government, has been recognised as a time for Government business.

The lack of logic in his argument is that the opposite of that is equally true. If we do not put this amendment through today, if on any day the Opposition or the crossbenchers believe that some of their business is so pressing that it should take precedence on a Wednesday afternoon they can negotiate that too.

MR SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation. Mr Kaine has the floor.

MR KAINE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is clear they do not want to listen. But just as Mr Berry argues that the Government can negotiate to get its time back, after having given it away, it is equally true that the Opposition and the crossbenchers can debate and argue to get additional time on any day if they believe their business is sufficiently pressing to warrant it. Mr Berry's logic does not support his case, not in the slightest.

I must say I am astounded to hear Mr Berry put this specious argument, this convoluted argument, this unconvincing argument that the Government should give away time that is rightly its time under the standing orders for absolutely no reason at all. He stands over there and argues for that, and I just have to wonder if there is a change of government in the future - and I doubt that there will be - will he then argue the same case. Of course he will not, because he will maintain then that this is Government time, Government business is entitled to take precedence during this time and the Government should get its business up unless somebody can bring forward an argument to change that. The argument, to me, is most unconvincing and I am astonished that the Opposition would even consider supporting this as a long-term amendment to the standing orders which would then require them to argue their case to get their time back. I think it is ludicrous.

I think the Government has plenty of business on the agenda that needs to be dealt with. To argue that it should all be set aside in favour of private members business for one-third of the sitting time of this Assembly, one day out of every three, is beyond my understanding. I can assume only that either the Opposition has lost its wits entirely or it just wishes to be difficult. In either case, I think what they are doing is reprehensible.

MR MOORE (11.56): It is interesting that the Government is getting so good at picking losers. What they should have done was graciously accepted that this would be a sensible move. Mr Kaine is quite incorrect when he says that this fully turns over a third of time to private members business because, if that were the case, then we would not have any questions without notice, presentation of papers and Assembly business, as occurs on this day. I should not say that he is quite incorrect; he is inaccurate. It would be much more accurate to say that the effect of this proposal, as we have seen, is basically that about 41/2 hours of private members business would get debated in any sitting week.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .