Page 278 - Week 01 - Thursday, 29 November 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So it does lend itself to a lack of credibility of the government then when they are going to be putting legislation before this place, demanding that it be treated urgently, and then saying no when it does not suit them, that it is not urgent.
The reason that the government has given today that they have pulled it essentially is to do with the scrutiny report. The reason that Mr Corbell has given is false. It is fictitious. Let me explain why. The scrutiny report that was provided to day is actually the same scrutiny report that was provided to the government in August last year. It says so in the scrutiny report. It actually refers to a link. It says that it is the same scrutiny report It says, “There is the link; go to the scrutiny report of the Seventh Assembly.”
That scrutiny report was provided on 13 August and the government responded to the committee report on 20 August. So the government has had that scrutiny report. They have dealt with it. They have responded. Now they are saying, “Because of the scrutiny report we cannot debate this legislation today.”
Clearly, that is not credible. Clearly, that is not true. Clearly, they are coming with fictitious reasons as to why they are withdrawing the legislation from being debated. So the question remains: why was it urgent? Why was it to be debated urgently and why is it no longer urgent? What on earth is going on within the Health Directorate? Essentially, Mr Corbell has come out with false reasons. What are the real reasons?
I think it was a reasonable thing to ask those questions today because as a result of this debate, as a result of this fiasco and the inability for the health minister to explain what is going on within her directorate and explain what is going on with this legislation, it is reasonable that the opposition be very sceptical and I think also the crossbench member of the executive be very sceptical when we are asked to deal with something urgently.
If the government is going to change their story to suit essentially just the matter of pleading and putting things on urgently at a whim and come up what have been proved to date as fictitious reasons, false reasons, essentially trying to hoodwink this Assembly into believing something and be caught out doing it, then I flag that this opposition I think would be very sceptical when it is being asked to deal with things urgently.
MR SESELJA (Brindabella—Leader of the Opposition) (11.31): I thank members for the suspension.
Mr Rattenbury: I think the motion actually called for Mr Hanson to be allowed to talk.
MADAM SPEAKER: No, the motion called for Mr Hanson and other members to be allowed to speak.
MR SESELJA: I will not speak for long but I do note just a couple of things and make a couple of points in addition to what Mr Hanson had to say. Firstly, I note the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video