Page 3458 - Week 11 - Thursday, 19 September 2013

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

considered, poorly-thought-through pieces of legislation, what we will do is seek to have them adjourned and brought forward by the appropriate minister for the government.

I think that in that way we will prevent what is broadly happening here on a number of pieces of legislation. We are having, essentially, a cabinet discussion in the chamber. Mr Rattenbury is a cabinet minister. If he has issues to discuss in cabinet, this should occur in cabinet. Then the opposition should consider legislation being brought forward by the cabinet minister. We should not have to be here to try and negotiate a path forward and be part of what seems to be a squabble internally between the Labor Party and the Greens. That is not our role in this place.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I foreshadow that the opposition will be moving to have this legislation adjourned. We would welcome the debate if it were brought forward by the appropriate government minister, as we welcome the debate on any matter. But we want to make sure that what we are debating in this place is considered well, is factually correct, is not poorly presented, is not just simple political posturing, which it always is when it is brought forward by Mr Rattenbury with his Greens hat on. If it is considered well, then we will debate it properly.

Obviously, if the government does not agree with that, we will have to consider what we will finally do with that particular piece of legislation—whether we will simply knock it off or support amendments if the government is going to try and improve the sort of mess that Mr Rattenbury does bring into this place, as I can foreshadow certainly is the case with this piece of legislation which is pre-emptive and with the piece of legislation we will be debating shortly, which the Attorney-General is desperately trying to clear up. Essentially, we are not going to be obstinate but we will not allow Mr Rattenbury’s very poor legislation to get through. That will be the general approach.

It is a bit of a line in the sand in this place. I accept that what it does is, in some ways, empower the government further. But I think it is important in this place that what we debate and what we deliver to the ACT community is well considered, is well conceived and is not based solely on political posturing to a political base—in this case to Mr Rattenbury and the Greens party.

Motion (by Mr Smyth) proposed:

That the debate be adjourned.

The Assembly voted—

 Ayes 7

 Noes 8

Mr Coe

Ms Lawder

Mr Barr

Ms Gallagher

Mrs Dunne

Mr Smyth

Ms Berry

Mr Gentleman

Mr Hanson

Mr Wall

Ms Burch

Ms Porter

Mrs Jones

Mr Corbell

Mr Rattenbury

Question resolved in the negative.

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