Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 9 February 2010) . . Page.. 34 ..
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Doszpot, again you are straying from the standing orders, which are the subject of the debate. You must confine your remarks to the suspension of standing orders.
MR DOSZPOT: I believe I have, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall continue to try and observe your comments. I believe that this new Assembly has shown that it can stand up to the bully tactics and the spin tactics of this minister, and Mr Barr can wait his turn and present his bill on Thursday, with the correct notice, as required by the conventions of this place. Mr Barr cannot see the forest for the trees. His main aim today is to get there first, to be there first. They are very shallow reasons to suspend the standing orders of this place, and the opposition will certainly not support the suspension of standing orders for these reasons.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (11.55): Madam Deputy Speaker, today is executive business day; this is not private members’ day. That is tomorrow. Mr Doszpot had already decided to deny Mr Barr leave to put forward a piece of executive business on executive business day. Now, ordinarily, when a member seeks leave and it is denied, usually it is a sort of reactionary thing. But I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know too many people whose instant reactions can produce a typed speech. It was a typed speech. That means, in fact, that those opposite were going to deny Mr Barr the opportunity to prosecute executive business on executive business day as early as this morning. So the whole hoary argument was probably concocted over cornflakes this morning.
Mrs Dunne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, again, this is a question of relevance. The debate is whether or not standing orders should be suspended, and it is not relevant whether Mr Doszpot has a typed speech or not. That does not relate to the question.
MR HARGREAVES: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, what we are going to here is whether or not this is a genuine denial of an opportunity for the minister to prosecute executive business on executive business day or whether or not it is just a ploy.
Mr Hanson: On the point of order as to relevance, Mr Hargreaves needs to address the issue rather than try to second guess Mr Doszpot’s motives.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hargreaves, just stick to the question.
MR HARGREAVES: Yes, I will stick to the question. The question really is whether or not it is justified to deny the minister the opportunity to suspend standing orders to allow the minister to prosecute executive business on executive business day. So, there can only be, really, one motive in denying the minister the opportunity to prosecute executive business on the day set aside for just that purpose—that is, because they are worried. This is not a debate on the bill; this is just a presentation of it. I can only surmise that those opposite are frightened of what Mr Barr might very well put down and that this is, in fact, just a ploy to actually give voice to that fear that Mr Barr might be presenting a bill which makes some sense.