Page 3476 - Week 11 - Thursday, 19 September 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (12.23): We will be supporting these amendments; I understand that is also what the Greens will be doing to improve this legislation.
As I outlined previously, this is a bad bill. There is no question about that. But what the Attorney-General has done, and I commend him for it, is significantly improve this legislation so that it is an improvement on the dog’s breakfast that was brought into this place by Mr Rattenbury. It is disappointing that this was not something that was worked out by the Greens-Labor coalition so they could bring this legislation to this place in a more deliberate manner. I note that the amendments that were brought by Mr Corbell just got in under the new standing order in terms of timeliness for matters to be considered in this place.
With such a substantive change to territory law that is somewhat revolutionary in terms of its approach compared to other jurisdictions, and certainly taking a different approach to other jurisdictions, to have this still playing out, with amendments being potentially circulated at the last safe moment on a busy sitting day, as it was yesterday, not giving time for the opposition to circulate amendments to the various people with a keen interest in this matter, is, I think, a poor way to do business.
I do not see the rush for this legislation. To do it on the run—to do it ad hoc, to do it through a process of amendments at the last minute without proper consultation or the ability for them to be considered by the community before they are voted on in this place—is poor form.
That is the very point that I was making in earlier debate. If this government wants to make significant changes to the way that we do business, that is fine, but let us do it properly. Let us do it professionally. Let us not have this as amateur hour. This is a government that we have seen this week, highlighted by the police numbers in Civic and the fact that the attorney did not even know what was going on in police reform—
Mr Corbell: Point of order, Madam Chair.
MADAM SPEAKER: Point of order, Mr Corbell.
Mr Corbell: Once again, Mr Hanson is using debate on what is now the detail stage of this bill to discuss a matter which is completely irrelevant to it. Police numbers in Civic have nothing to do with this bill. I ask you to call him to order.
MR HANSON: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, the point I am getting to is the fact that the way this is being debated is poor form. We have only just been circulated with amendments, just in time for the standing orders but not in substantive time for the proper community consultation to occur. I am trying to make the point that this is a broader failing of the government, that this is a government that is distracted by other issues and should be paying more attention to this issue. But I am happy to accept the point of order and move back to the topic.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video