Page 306 - Week 01 - Thursday, 12 February 2015

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

There will be reduced consultation. In a move to reduce community scrutiny of the light rail project, the bill speeds up territory plan variations required for light rail. The minister is given the authority to require the relevant Assembly committee to report on a variation in the time set by the minister. The bill states that this time must be between three and six months. However, we can be sure that the minister will set the time at three months. This is a very short time for a committee to seek community comments, conduct hearings, consider the comments and produce a thorough report.

Of course, this government obviously has no intention of taking the committee’s views or the community’s views into consideration. How do we know that? Because they did not even consult on this legislation. It is extraordinary that all the community councils, every single one, had not heard of this bill. Not one piece of contact from any government member about this legislation—Minister Rattenbury did not contact them, Minister Gentleman did not contact them, Minister Corbell did not contact them and the Chief Minister did not contact them. Nobody contacted a single community council about this project.

Mr Hanson: It’s grubby government.

MR COE: When I sent them an email to let them know about this scandalous legislation—

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Lawder): Do you have a point of order, Ms Burch?

Ms Burch: I do. I want to check whether “grubby” and “grubby government” are considered unparliamentary. If so, I ask that Mr Hanson withdraw.

Mr Doszpot: It’s pretty appropriate.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Thank you; I will check. In the meantime, Mr Coe, will you resume and I will make a ruling in just a second.

Mr Rattenbury: Madam Assistant Speaker, on the point of order, if it assists, you may recall from question time earlier today that Mr Hanson sought to have the word “grubby” withdrawn and Madam Speaker asked that it be withdrawn. At that time it was in reference to him.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Rattenbury. Do you have a point of order, Mr Gentleman?

Mr Gentleman: If I may, whilst you are considering this decision, I ask that if you make the decision that it is unparliamentary, you also ask Mr Doszpot to withdraw his comment calling us a “grubby government” whilst you were talking to Mr Rattenbury.

Mr Hanson: On the point of order, my interjection “It’s grubby government” is very different from hurling abuse at someone, as Mr Corbell did to me earlier. My remark was not directed at any individual. “It’s grubby government” is something that could be used in a debate—

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