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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (22 August) . . Page.. 3122 ..

MS TUCKER (10.43): I will not be supporting this motion. As Mr Moore said, we have already said why we think it is a silly bill. If I were to bring back every piece of legislation that did not get up, I do not think I would be getting support, and I cannot understand why anyone would consider giving Mr Rugendyke the capacity to do so at this time.

MR OSBORNE (10.44): My understanding is that Mr Rugendyke does have the numbers for the legislation to pass. My understanding is that the burnout provision was inadvertently removed when we had a debate this year.

Mr Hargreaves: You were not here to listen. I told you directly.

MR OSBORNE: Mr Hargreaves interrupts. I do not recall. I missed it. I will support the suspension of standing orders to allow Mr Rugendyke to bring his bill on. There are two issues here. The first is whether we give leave. Secondly, if the Assembly does give leave, then we all have the opportunity to speak on the bill.

Mr Kaine: We already have. I will support him, but your argument is a bit flawed.

MR OSBORNE: I always find Mr Kaine's lecturing of me interesting. There are two issues. We give leave and then we vote on the bill. I understand that Mr Moore will give leave and probably vote against the bill, and other members will do the same.

MR HUMPHRIES (Chief Minister, Minister for Community Affairs and Treasurer) (10.45): Mr Speaker, I want to make a brief response to the point Ms Tucker made. I think normally it would be inappropriate to bring a bill back on for debate in this place where the Assembly had clearly decided a particular thing and a member wanted to have a further go to see whether he would have better luck on the second go. I think that would be inappropriate, and in those circumstances I think Ms Tucker's point would be reasonable.

But I understand that in this matter a number of members were unaware of the effect of what was being put forward. Mr Hargreaves apparently was aware of what was going on. That is fine.

Mr Hargreaves: And said so.

MR HUMPHRIES: And said so. But apparently other members were not aware. On that basis I think there is a case for saying that this is a matter that ought to be redealt with.

MS TUCKER: I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.


: If you are going to say that there was a serious misunderstanding, there should be a recall of the vote, but I do not think you can do that after such a large period of time has elapsed. If you say that people did not quite understand what was happening, and if therefore you do not observe the rule about reintroducing legislation in the same calendar year, then there is going to be a clear incentive for other people to do the same as Mr Rugendyke. I would love to do it with many pieces of legislation on which I would

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