Page 112 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 7 December 2004
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Fifth Assembly and have people run a critique of their legislation, if that was necessary. They resented it most roundly, especially the Treasurer and the Minister for Energy, as he was then. But that is what democracy is about: democracy is about debating the issues of the day.
What it really boils down to is that this is an opportunity for the government to force its will not just on this place but also on the people of the ACT. It is not just about whether we get our moment in the sun. It is about whether the views and the rights of the people of the ACT get an airing in this place or whether the Treasurer and all his colleagues can push things through, irrespective of the need, and we have seen it today. We are going to have committees that suit the government. They are going to have majorities on committees so that they do not do anything inconvenient. They are not going to give leave to people to speak again, and we have had the first instance of a non-government member being gagged. Here, again, is another opportunity for the government to gag debate in the ACT.
This will not work. On the very first occasion that the government suddenly finds it has something that it really needs to do, we are going to have the suspension of standing orders. And who will have egg on their face then? We have created an entirely inflexible system, much like some of the inflexible planning systems that the manager of government business has attempted to create in the ACT; I mean, it is an entirely inflexible position, it does not provide for negotiation.
We had a system last year where, for the most part, we agreed to rise at seven and very rarely did we sit beyond that. If you look at the statistics, which I do not have on hand at the moment, there were very few days, especially prior to the arrival of certain secretariat staff, where we did that. As a result of this, we will have a system that is entirely inflexible. We are going to get to a situation fairly soon where something will need to be debated and resolved at a particular time, and this manager of government business will have created a situation where the government will not have the flexibility that it needs.
As to the impact it will have on private members’ day—well, of course, now that we have a majority government we do not want anyone raising issues that would be inconvenient for them. What this will do is put the same constraints on private members’ day. The thing that was most patently obvious about the government in the previous Assembly was that they loathed private members’ day because it caused them inconvenience. Sometimes people required them to do things that they did not want to do. What they want to do with this proposal is gag the members of this Assembly who speak on behalf of the community.
MS MacDONALD (Brindabella) (5.29): I will attempt to be brief, succinct and to the point. Yes, there is that element of family friendly hours within the motion. We had that debate earlier in the year in the Assembly, and I was the one who put up the motion on that debate. Mr Quinlan just asked me if the motion was passed and the answer is, “Yes, it was passed.” The opposition at the time opposed it and, yes, it is opposing it again. The opposition sits across from us saying that it is important that we be able to sit until very late into the night; that, when you take on the job as a member of the Assembly, you must sit unreasonable hours in which you cannot think properly because you have been here since early in the morning; and that it is okay that the same speech is presented at least six or seven times by the different members of the opposition.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .