Page 2961 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
asked whether it could be put on the Assembly website. The administration and procedure committee declined to put it on the Assembly website because it was considered a political document.
However, I think that this inclusion here is probably within the rules. It does not offend any of the standing orders, Mr Hanson. It is, I would suggest, an issue that may be of some concern to some members. As it currently stands, I think—this is my personal view—that the substantive part of the amendment could be expressed if it concluded after the words “planning tools”. The bit about the Labor-Greens agreement is problematic but it does not offend the standing orders in any way; so I will let it stand. However, this may be something that the administration and procedure committee might like to consider in respect of whether there is a better way of handling it.
Mr Hanson: Thanks, Madam Speaker. I am not questioning the ruling in any sense. But what this amendment does, though, is to purport that the funding that is in the budget is as a result of the Labor-Greens agreement. That is essentially what this amendment says. It says that the funding for advanced care planning in ACT Health to develop and implement a range of appropriate planning tools is part of the shared agreement in the parliamentary agreement.
I suppose what I am saying is that this now has implications in terms of questions that we can ask in question time because what this is saying is that it is now funding in the ACT budget as a direct consequence of the ACT Greens-Labor parliamentary agreement. I am not asking for a ruling. But it is maybe something I could ask you to consider so that in future if we are asking questions about the ACT Greens and Labor parliamentary agreement in question time, noting that the Greens are saying that the funding in the budget is as a consequence of that, that is now something that is in the purview of all the ministers and their responsibilities that they have to address.
You cannot have your cake and eat it, I suppose, Madam Speaker. You cannot say that the reason we are doing this in the budget is because of the parliamentary agreement. Then when we ask questions of ministers about the budget or about matters in the parliamentary agreement, they say that this has got nothing to do with it, that is a political document.
It does open up a can of worms. It seems that there is great inconsistency in the application of the parliamentary agreement in respect of what is in and out of order in this place. I am not asking for a ruling now. I am just asking that you consider it and maybe get back to the Assembly with further rulings.
Mr Rattenbury: On the matter that Mr Hanson has just raised, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Sorry, we have to deal with this within the standing orders. Mr Hanson was speaking. He asked me for a ruling. I have given my ruling. Do you want to seek leave to speak? I think that would be the best way of dealing with it.
Mr Rattenbury: Mr Hanson has just had quite a dissertation on it; I just—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video