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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2947 ..

Ms Tucker: On that point of order: It was not my understanding that there was a ruling on that before. I also argued against that point of order. Then I said I was no longer going to be speaking on the Federal issue, so I left it uncontested. I would argue that there is a relationship between the national electricity market and the ACT. The national electricity market is involved with competition policy, which is a national issue and a Federal issue. You cannot separate these things. It is absolutely legitimate to talk about the Federal Government's approach to greenhouse. I ask you to consider that in your ruling.

Mr Whitecross: Further to the point of order: Mr Corbell was specifically talking about the ACT lobbying the Federal Government. He was specifically talking about an ACT action, not about Federal Government action. He was talking about the ACT's actions on behalf of the ACT community in respect of this matter.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand the point of order raised by Mr Humphries as Minister. I do not uphold it. The reason I do not uphold it is that, on information I have just received, in this discussion not only the Government but members of this place, on behalf of their constituents, should have the ability to press the Federal Government to take the appropriate action.

MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. I think that is a very wise ruling, because the greenhouse gas emission problem is a global problem. It does not stop at the border. Residents of the ACT are residents of Australia. The power we use in the ACT and the transport policies in the ACT are affected by decisions made by our Federal Government. Our Federal Government's attitude on greenhouse gas emissions and issues to do with renewable sources of energy has been absolutely appalling. This Government has a responsibility to talk to its Federal counterparts on behalf of the ACT community. I seek leave for an extension of time.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave granted?

Mr Humphries: No, it is not. There is a tradition in this place that we do not seek extensions of time on matters of public importance. That is a fairly longstanding and quite rigorously adhered to convention in this place. I would submit that it should not be breached at this stage.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.

Mr Whitecross: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision not to give leave, especially given that he was given an extension of time in an MPI debate earlier this week. He should reflect on that when he is denying leave now. If he does not, I will have to move a motion.

Mr Humphries: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, we did not have an MPI earlier this week. We had a debate on a ministerial statement.

Mr Whitecross: I will move that we suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent Mr Corbell from getting an extension of time.

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