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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1899 ..

MR OSBORNE (10.41): Mr Speaker, I should explain my role in this. I was called away at about a quarter past five. There was a family situation so I had to leave rather urgently. I got a message from my office to Mr Humphries, but I have to apologise. I did not send a message to Mr Corbell because I did have to leave, so it was my fault. The message that I asked-

Mr Wood: There was no attempt to adjourn. No-one moved that the debate be adjourned. Why didn't you do it!

Mr Humphries: I asked Mr Berry about it and he refused to do it, Mr Wood.

MR OSBORNE: The message to Mr Humphries was that I would be back, but could we adjourn. Unfortunately, the message had not got through to Mr Rugendyke, so it is my fault and I do apologise for that. That is what has brought that about, Mr Speaker.

Members interjecting-

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Osborne has the floor.

MR OSBORNE: Of the two options, I would have supported-

Mr Wood: We can see how worried you are. Panic-stricken, by the sound of it. They are.

MR OSBORNE: Oh, them? I thought you were talking to me. Mr Speaker, of the options, I have a problem with the privileges committee, when the justice committee which I chair is currently looking at Mr Kaine's legislation in relation to the integrity commission, which is something that this type of issue would come under. I do not think setting up a privileges committee at this stage-

Members interjecting-

MR OSBORNE: Having said that, Mr Rugendyke has indicated that his preference was for it to go before the urban services committee. We are not attempting to stop some inquiry of some sort. It is just a question of where the inquiry would be undertaken. As I said, I apologise for the lack of communication from me, but it was a situation that I had to move on very quickly. I apologise for the confusion.

MR KAINE (10.43): Mr Speaker, I am not too sure what the purpose of Mr Osborne's speech was. He obviously was not speaking in terms of the standing orders. He was somehow excusing himself for not being here and not telling everybody that he was not going to be here. That is no justification for suspending standing orders.

I do not know what his circumstances were, but I do know he was not here, and I do know that if the government, knowing that he was not going to be here, wanted to do something about it, they had the option to adjourn the debate. They did not do so.

Mr Speaker, I would question very much the propriety of the government seeking now to change a vote simply because they could not control the floor at the time. Now they want to bring it back. Now that they have got the numbers back they want to resubmit the matter so that it will be resolved differently.

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