Page 2526 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 August 2007

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


will not be supporting this motion. I understand what the attorney is saying but it comes rather late in a debate that has been going on since Tuesday. I do not think we had too much trouble forgoing private members’ business yesterday afternoon; I think it was a sensible move.

I would be interested to see whether the attorney is proposing to guillotine the debate. Obviously the government has the numbers to do what it wants. Given that the government is obviously embarking on this course, I suggest that it will get it through. But let us work out a way in which to have a full and frank debate next year. The opposition is willing to be involved in that. I think it would be sensible, rather than coming up with something like this towards the end of a fruitful, if not lengthy, debate.

MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (10.20): I will be brief because I would really like this time to be focused on the budget debate. I have to say that this is an extraordinary measure. This is the third ACT budget with which I have been involved. In the past it has not been necessary to truncate debate. This is a $3 billion outlay on behalf of the people of Canberra who rightfully expect it to be properly considered. When I tell people how often this Assembly sits I find it a cause for embarrassment that we sit for fewer than 40 days a year.

I find it unacceptable that I have to say to the people of Canberra, “People wanted to go home so the government had to rush this whole thing through.” The government said that this bill has been debated for 2½ days. We have not spent 2½ days debating this bill. Various reports, statements, speeches, the tabling of travel reports and all manner of things have interfered substantially—

Ms MacDonald: How about private members’ business for you?

MR MULCAHY: I have the call, Ms MacDonald. All manner of things have interfered substantially with the discussion process. Members on both sides have had abuse thrown at them, and I guess that that has interfered in the sense that it has been necessary for them to respond and to correct the record. I say to the government that it might have the numbers to do what it wants, but this is a very bad day for the democratic system and it is a bad day for the scrutiny of the financial affairs of the territory.

It is remarkable how rarely the Chief Minister has been here throughout the budget debate. He is the Treasurer. When Mr Quinlan was in the job we had nothing like this. At least he took his job seriously enough to be here. Instead, we have a part-time, detached approach. Even Mr Corbell spoke in the chamber on behalf of the Chief Minister. This is a very disappointing day. I will certainly be voting against this proposal to truncate debate.

We have done everything in our power to try to contain speaking times in this debate. I talked to the Chief Minister yesterday when there was an outburst in the chamber and I spoke to Mr Hargreaves and indicated that we were trying to limit debate. But we simply cannot entertain the idea that people let everything go through in this territory without scrutiny. This is an example of majority government at its very worst. I will certainly be voting against this proposal.


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