Page 2896 - Week 09 - Thursday, 13 August 2015

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

disallowance motion on those draft variations. But Mr Coe left it to just prior to lunchtime today on the last day of sitting. There was plenty of time to be able to do that, but he left it until the last moment, and that was to ensure that he could prolong as much as he could any discussion on these variations.

It was only through me checking the register of lodgements on the motions with the Clerk that I noticed Mr Coe had lodged those today, otherwise we would not have known until the next sitting, or until he did a media release saying he had lodged those motions. I think it is a bit wry to say that the government is tricky and Mr Coe and the opposition are not. This is an important debate. It is important that this motion does not go forward so we can allow certainty for the two variations to the territory plan.

MR WALL (Brindabella) (4.42): This is an unusual situation we find ourselves in. As Mr Corbell has articulated, it is not the first time this issue has arisen in the Assembly but certainly it is one that is most unusual. In instances where something unusual or something obscure happens in this place, the general practice is that we refer to the standing orders and refer to the Companion to the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly. Chapter 11.252 of the Companion to the Standing Orders addresses the exact situation we have here today. For the benefit of all members, I read out that section:

Though standing order 112 provides that a notice of motion becomes effective only when it appears on the Notice Paper, the Assembly has on occasions suspended standing and temporary orders to permit a Member to move a motion to disallow a variation to the territory plan …

That is the situation we find ourselves in now. It then points to an example in the Third Assembly where a similar thing occurred in relation to subordinate laws. The Companion goes on to say:

The procedure—

to debate a motion on the day it is presented—

must be regarded as highly questionable unless extraordinary circumstances prevail.

The situation we find ourselves in where the government have brought on a motion to disallow their own draft variation to the territory plan on the day that the motion was presented remains highly questionable. Their motives are highly questionable and the reasons why they are doing it are highly questionable—both the reasons they are moving this disallowance today—

Mr Corbell: On a point of order, suggesting that a member’s motives are highly questionable is an improper imputation. It is an imputation on the motivation of the member—in this case me, being the mover. It is disorderly. All imputations are disorderly, and Mr Wall has made that imputation. It is disorderly and he should be asked to withdraw.

MR WALL: I seek your guidance on that, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am referring to the statement made in the Companion to the Standing Orders:

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