Page 3456 - Week 11 - Thursday, 19 September 2013

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

In essence if Mr Rattenbury cannot get an issue through his cabinet colleagues, if he cannot get an issue through his coalition partners, then it is a nonsense that he should then be bringing this issue essentially to the opposition in the Assembly to try to get it through. If his Labor mates are not going to sign up to something, he is then going to try and bring it to us. If there is an issue that Mr Rattenbury is bringing forward in his ministerial portfolio, I make it very clear that, as he is a member of the government, of course we will treat it on its merits.

But if he has a piece of legislation that he wants to get through, then he should get it through the cabinet process as a cabinet member. Then the appropriate minister should bring that forward. If there is a piece of legislation that falls outside his ministerial portfolio it should rightly be brought on by somebody else if the government were to support it. The only reason he would be bringing it forward, essentially, is sort of posturing and grandstanding.

I consider it entirely unworkable. I can foreshadow some of the other debates that we are going to have in this place about various issues. We can certainly see it with the piece of legislation introduced by Mr Rattenbury today with regard to pig farms and battery hens. There are no pig farms and battery hen farms in the ACT. In Mr Rattenbury’s own words in the media, it is about time to send a message to other jurisdictions.

Mr Corbell: Point of order.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Corbell, point of order.

Mr Corbell: Relevance, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the Fair Trading (Fuel Prices) Amendment Bill 2013. If Mr Hanson wants to speak about matters agricultural, I am sure there are other opportunities to do that. But they are certainly not relevant matters for this bill.

MR HANSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order. I accept what Mr Corbell is saying, but the reason I am putting forward this argument is that I am trying to explain the opposition’s approach to dealing with this piece of legislation that has broader implications in terms of how we are going to deal with executive members business.

I accept that this matter I am discussing is not directly relevant to this bill but it certainly is in terms of the opposition’s approach to it, which I will outline shortly. I am certainly not going to be going into broader matters and debating them further but it is entirely relevant to the outcome of the way that the opposition is dealing with this particular piece of legislation.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, we are not debating that matter at all. The question is that the bill be agreed to in principle. That is all we are debating at the moment; so please remain relevant.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video