Page 4229 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 26 November 2013
(2) in accordance with standing order 213A, calls on the Government to table, by 31 October 2013, any other analysis …
Mr Smyth asserts that that actually means that every step in standing order 213A should be complied with. But that is an absurd suggestion. First of all, standing order 213A says the Assembly may—may—order documents to be tabled in the Assembly. But what did the resolution say? It noted the information provided in the relevant budget papers and, in accordance with standing order 213A, called on the government to table any other analysis of the impacts that the taxation reforms implemented. It did not call for documents. It did not say, “All documents in relation to this matter.” It failed to do so.
Mr Smyth can assert that the motion in some way calls up every provision of standing order 213A, but it did not. Instead, the motion was quite explicit: it asked for any other analysis. It did not ask for more documents. It did not ask for every piece of paper prepared by the department of Treasury. It did not ask for every briefing note provided to the Treasurer. It did not ask for those things. If the Assembly had wanted those things, it would have said so. But it did not. And that is exactly the advice the Clerk gave to Madam Speaker as well.
So let us be very clear about this: the Liberal Party have failed to make out the case, and they have failed spectacularly. First of all, it is clear there should be a clear understanding that the advice provided to Madam Speaker is not consistent with her ruling on this matter. Secondly, the resolution of the Assembly did not compel the production of specific documents. If the Assembly had wanted specific documents, it would have ordered for them. It did not. The Treasurer has comprehensively complied with the resolution of the Assembly. He has outlined in detail all other analysis of the impacts the taxation reforms implemented to date are expected to have over time. Mr Smyth needs to focus more on the language of resolutions rather than on making up the fairy tales we have seen in his motion today.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo): Under standing order 47, Madam Speaker, I seek your leave to make an explanation. I believe my remarks have been misunderstood. I will keep it brief.
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes, you have leave, Mr Rattenbury.
MR RATTENBURY: In his remarks, Mr Hanson suggested I was satisfied by the summary. My comments were that I believe there is the summary document in addition to the actual documents that were called for, which are the appendices that Mr Barr tabled in the Assembly on 31 October.
Mr Hanson: That’s a debating point, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, Mr Hanson!
MR RATTENBURY: So, to be quite clear, I believe there are two documents: there are the documents that were called for and, in addition, the summary document, which is the one that is exercising Mr Hanson.