Page 619 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON: Will you stop the clock, please?
Mr Coe: What do you think? What are you going to do about it?
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Coe, Mr Stanhope! Mr Hanson has the floor. I expect to be able to hear him.
MR HANSON: The point is that they are two well-known drugs. I could have gone through and exhausted the list. But to do so would, I think, cause problems through the system and cause technical arguments about “not this drug but we should have that drug”. I would be willing to accept any amendment from Mr Stanhope if he says, “No, we should have ecstasy. No, we should have a range of other drugs in there.” That is a very simple amendment to add those to the list of the drugs in this document. And by doing so, that would achieve everything that Mr Stanhope is doing. It already does it for cannabis and methamphetamines and it would do it for any other drug of his choosing.
Why doesn’t he do that? Why doesn’t he actually say that in the media and in this Assembly, rather than trying to ridicule and rather than trying to dismiss this legislation as something other than it is? This is a Chief Minister who has previously described the random drug-testing regime that was proposed as redneck. He has dismissed it. And, when we brought this in in December, he described it as a low priority. It was not a priority for this government. And Mr Stanhope, rather than working, as the Greens have, with the Canberra Liberals to bring in effective legislation, to make sure our roads are safe, rather than inquiring of me how he could work with me by putting amendments to make this better legislation, decided to attack the legislation, to dismiss it, when he has no legislation of his own on the table and in fact has got nothing to offer other than rhetoric and political spin and attack.
Points of order
Statement by Speaker
MR SPEAKER: Members, I would like to turn to a couple of matters outstanding from this morning, now that we have finished question time. The first is that I undertook, on Mr Stanhope’s request earlier, to review the Hansard regarding a comment Mr Smyth had made. I did do that. I also, as I have just alluded to, checked the standing orders. There is no point of order on the basis that—as I have just outlined, Mr Stanhope, in the previous matter—you cannot actually make a point of order on whether somebody said something factual or not. You cannot dispute the substance of that as a point of order; it has to be done as a matter of debate.
Privileges 2010—Select Committee
Membership
MR SPEAKER: I have been notified in writing of the nomination of Mr Coe as a member of the Select Committee on Privileges 2010.
Motion (by Mr Corbell) agreed to:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video