Page 3288 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 19 August 2008

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

Standing orders—suspension

Motion (by Mr Corbell) proposed:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Corbell from moving his amendments Nos 1 to 26 together.

MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (7.00): Mr Speaker, the reason I have sought to deny the minister leave, and the reason I will oppose the suspension of standing orders, is that, with respect to the amendments being addressed by the minister, I was bewildered when Mr Seselja raised this issue earlier, and I have now confirmed with my office that we have not been given the courtesy of even seeing those amendments, so he is ahead of me in getting them at 10 to four. The minister’s office needs to get their act together on these matters. It ought to be adjourned. If we have not resolved to adjourn it, I will oppose the continuation of consideration of this amendment.

MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (7.01): For similar reasons we will not support the suspension of standing orders. The Attorney-General is seeking to ram this through. There are a number of amendments that were dropped at 10 to four with no notice. We were not given any notice in the offices. Mr Speaker, if you look at these amendments, there are some substantive issues that need to be looked at—issues around rules of evidence, representation, hearings in private or partly in private and admissibility of evidence given at the preliminary conference. These are issues that should not be rushed through with absolutely no consideration from members. That is why we will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders so that Mr Corbell can ram it through.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (7.02), in reply: The issues before the Assembly are not of the incredibly complex nature that members are seeking to make out. If members had been present for my closing speech in the in-principle stage, they would have heard that the amendments are a consequence of issues raised by the scrutiny of bills committee and by the stakeholders which I have outlined in my response—

Members interjecting—


MR CORBELL: and which I have also outlined in correspondence to the scrutiny of bills committee.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Corbell, just resume your seat for a minute. No matter how passionate members feel about this, there are a couple of members here who are on a warning. I have reached the limit of my tolerance.

MR CORBELL: And which I have also outlined in my detailed four-page letter in reply to the scrutiny of bills committee. These issues are not new. They are not a surprise for members. They have been put on the record; they have been dealt with in a comprehensive government response to the scrutiny of bills committee.

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