Page 3463 - Week 11 - Thursday, 19 September 2013

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

what my role in the Assembly can be and is allowed to be. Mr Hanson is simply saying that as a member of the Assembly, somehow my ability to do things in this place should be restricted. That is bizarre, and I am very surprised to hear it.

Mr Hanson actually went so far as to say that it is not the issue at hand but who brings it forward as to whether an idea is a good one or not and whether it should be allowed to be brought on in this place. That is a position that I think is undemocratic. It is certainly a position that lacks any sort of policy integrity. I am sure that if Mr Coe tabled this legislation in here we would have a big backslapping exercise going on where Mr Hanson—

Mrs Jones: I don’t think Mr Coe would have tabled it.

MR RATTENBURY: I could imagine that Mr Coe might have tabled this legislation, because he would have looked at Barry O’Farrell across the border and gone: “That is a good idea. That helps consumers here in the ACT. I will bring that forward.” I can imagine that Mr Coe might have done that. If he had, Mr Hanson would be slapping him on the back, going, “Good on you for copying that legislation from New South Wales.”

Surely the question is whether an initiative brought into this place is a good idea or not. That is certainly the approach that I take. We have seen that three times in the last two days. This morning I supported Mr Smyth’s call for papers on the tax reform under standing order 213A, because, as I said in my remarks at the time, I believe the community should have access to those papers. On the bushfire motion yesterday afternoon, Mr Smyth again put a motion asking that certain information be provided because it is required under law. It is appropriate that the community have access to the information; it was a perfectly fair case. I agreed with Mr Smyth on that, and that is why I supported the motion that he brought forward yesterday. Even on Uriarra yesterday morning, despite the back and forth and the shenanigans that went on, I agreed with the Liberal Party that the call-in power should not be used in that circumstance. And they actually—

Members interjecting—

MR RATTENBURY: Let the record show that before we walked into this chamber yesterday morning there was an agreed way forward on that. The Liberal Party then brought another amendment once we were in the chamber that was different from the one we discussed prior to debate yesterday morning. Unfortunately, we could not find common ground. We articulated that debate yesterday, and I do not want to re-prosecute it here.

My observation is simply one around the fact that when a good idea gets brought to this chamber, members should take it on its merits. We should not have the bizarre situation where Mr Hanson has just come in here and said: “Because Mr Rattenbury is bringing it to the chamber, I will not even consider it. In fact, I am going to take the undemocratic approach of seeking to defer anything Mr Rattenbury brings into this chamber, because I do not want to deal with any business he brings to this place.”

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