Page 3006 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 17 October 2007

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


scrutiny report 46 of the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs. At least that was brief, I suppose. But both of those motions would have been better off moved outside of private members’ business, and that is what this day is.

Now, I have no problem—because you are going to stop private members’ business at 6.00—if you want to stay and debate this at 6 o’clock. If you do not want to do that, you have my full support to put this on first up tomorrow before we do the bills. Let us do it then. Yes, it is important. We have a lot of important things on the agenda. Yes, this is something that should have been done yesterday, and, indeed, could have been done yesterday. I hear from some of my colleagues that you put it on today because of a fit of pique. Well, if that is so, that is not the right reason to do so. This is private members’ day, and I would hope that all of our business is important here.

We will certainly be supporting the motion to be debated, and similar motions have been brought, I think, around this time each year, and they are important motions. But private members’ day is also important. We have a number of notices of motion—I doubt very much if we are going to get to them all, and that is often the case. This Assembly, I think, has a pretty proud tradition in terms of allowing debate on private members’ business, and it is only in fairly exceptional circumstances that we actually truncate that. I think we did that during the budget debate, for very good reason, but, in the normal course of events, private members’ business should be allowed to run. That has been the tradition in this Assembly. There is no reason why this notice of motion cannot be done later today, if you want to extend the Assembly a bit at 6 o’clock, or, indeed, as I suggested just now, put it on first up for tomorrow, even before you do your bills, so we can have a good debate.

Mr Stanhope: Liberals refuse to debate poverty.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Stanhope: Liberal Party refuses to debate poverty.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Chief Minister, order!

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Acting Minister for Health and Acting Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services) (11.17): Mr Speaker, it is very disappointing that the Liberal Party are not interested in debating a motion about poverty. This item has been on the agenda for a reasonable period of time. Notice has been given of this by the Chief Minister, and today is the key day in terms of the anti-poverty campaign. For the opposition to petulantly refuse leave is disappointing in the extreme. This should be an issue above politics; this should be an issue beyond petty manoeuvring in the Assembly. Why not allow this debate to come on? Why not allow this debate to come on now to give it the precedence it deserves, to give it the significance that it deserves in this place rather than try to manoeuvre for petty political advantage?

Mr Speaker, it is disappointing that what we have seen yesterday and now today is the opposition’s refusal to allow this Assembly to be a workable legislature. We saw yesterday through their shenanigans and behaviour that executive business did not


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