Page 486 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Why does not Mrs Dunne simply put it on the notice paper and allow it to be dealt with in private members’ business tomorrow? Tomorrow the Liberal Party have a whole agenda paper available to them to debate matters where they believe there are issues of concern and where they believe the actions of government ministers should be critiqued. That is their opportunity.
If they thought it was so important to move this motion, why did they not do it when the Assembly resumed at 2 pm this afternoon prior to question time? There is plenty of precedent for that in this place. There have been plenty of times at the commencement of question time at 2 pm in this place when Labor oppositions and Liberal oppositions have said that they were moving a motion to condemn the actions of a minister. They did not do so.
Mrs Dunne has said that this matter is of the utmost importance and must be dealt with straight away. She neglected to mention that that obviously did not include question time. Let us have the debate, but let us have it according to the forms of this place. Either it is urgent or it is not. If it is urgent, it should have been moved at 2 o’clock. It was not moved at 2 o’clock. Clearly, it is not urgent and the matter can be dealt with when private members’ business is called on tomorrow.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (2.59): Mr Corbell needs to read standing order 74. Mr Corbell is very good at getting up and asserting things, but often he misses the facts. The fact is that standing order 74 says that at the appropriate time—it used to be 2.30; now it is 2 o’clock—questions without notice shall be called on.
It is the practice that if a motion of no confidence or a motion of censure occurs during question time, it is debated then. It is often done with leave. But the practice is that if debate on a motion starts before the lunch break, question time would still occur. Mr Corbell often jumps in and asserts things and is simply wrong.
I have to say that in my time here I do not recall an occasion—I have asked the clerks and they are thinking about it but none came immediately to mind—when question time has been suspended at 2.30 to allow a motion of no confidence or a similar motion to be brought on.
Mr Hargreaves. I can. You guys did it—right in the middle of it!
MR SMYTH: Well, you find it and come back with it. In the middle of question time is fine because standing orders are suspended. We have given the house the courtesy of having question time. Indeed, we have given Mr Corbell the courtesy of knowing that this was coming with a much longer time frame than the Labor Party ever gave those on this side of the house.
It is appropriate to do this. When an issue of concern is raised, it should be dealt with expeditiously. We should not hide. We should not try and stop this. We should answer the question and we should accept the judgement of the house. Mr Corbell is attempting to hide. He does not want this debate. He stands up and says the words, but nobody believes him because of the way he says them and the way he goes about his business. If he had nothing to answer for, he would not have stood in this way and we would not be wasting the Assembly’s time now.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .