Page 2552 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Corbell: We do not know what is in them. We will not agree to it unless we know what is in them. That is the usual practice for incorporation.
MR SPEAKER: Order! There is a motion before the house.
MRS DUNNE: What we have seen tonight is an entirely unprecedented attempt by the government to close down debate. That has now been made worse by the government’s attempts to prohibit people from incorporating speeches into Hansard. Mr Corbell gives the excuse, “We will not give permission because you have not sought our permission beforehand”, but this Assembly still has its own rules. At this stage its rules do not require members to get permission from the manager of government business before they speak and to have their speeches vetted.
Mr Mulcahy, as the shadow treasurer, sat through all the debate in this chamber, unlike the Treasurer and most of the members opposite. Mr Mulcahy has been here for almost every one of the 15 or 16 hours that we have talked about and he still has many more contributions to make. Today the manager of government business said, “You cannot put your words into Hansard because I have not vetted them.” When will we see the rules that state that no member of the opposition or crossbenches can speak until the manager of government business has vetted what they have to say? This is a dictatorship. This new rule was tyrannically introduced by the manager of government business because he has the numbers. There are plenty of forms around this place that have continued throughout self-government. It has never been the case that members have had to seek permission from the manager of government business to incorporate documents in Hansard. In fact, only last week I was given leave to incorporate a document in Hansard.
It was all right last week but it is not all right tonight. Mr Corbell, as the manager of government business, can barely keep awake. If he cannot stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen. He should go and find himself a nice nine to five job and make his space available for somebody who has a bit of stamina and who will look after the interests of the people of the ACT. If he cannot bring himself to stay here and he wants to go home and get his beauty sleep, that is all right. The people of the ACT deserve scrutiny and opposition members are entitled to have their views heard. If those views are not heard because the minister wants to close this debate, opposition members are at least entitled to put them on the record so that the people of the ACT can read them. We have to suspend standing orders because the routine processes of this Assembly are being thwarted again tonight by the manager of government business.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (12.06 am): I always love it when Liberal Party members go for the macho argument, “We are tougher than you and we can handle a longer debate.” I think those sorts of politics are pretty miserable and sad. I do not think anyone in this city would seriously think that much is considered or is thoughtful at 2.00 am or 3.00 am.
For as long as I have been here—and I have been here for some time now—that has been the convention in this place. I can recall periods during the Carnell Liberal government when leave was sought by government ministers, for example, to have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .