Page 4949 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 28 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
positions are established. I do not think that my narrative is changing, other than perhaps a softening. I have already articulated the Canberra Liberals’ position.
It is likely, therefore, that evidence presented, if Mr Pettersson is so sure of his case, to a committee is only likely to soften our position as a greater understanding occurs. If he is so confident that he is on the right side of this debate, if Mr Rattenbury is so confident that they are on the right side of this debate, and the evidence is so compelling, then surely exposing that through a committee process—it gets put through a committee process and we have a look at what the evidence is—would be a compelling argument then to do that.
The interjections from Mr Barr and others are: “No-one is going to change their mind.” Why do we refer any bill to a committee? That is a nonsense argument. Why did we refer medical cannabis? Why do we refer any other bill, if the view is: “It isn’t going to make any difference sending it to a committee”? I think that is very disparaging of the committee process, and I do not think that is true. I would like to understand this issue more by listening to the experts and getting the evidence from other jurisdictions and so on.
I express my disappointment. I think that this is a very odd decision from the Greens and the Labor Party, to be frank, because it is very difficult on one side to argue, “We have got the evidence, the experts call for this, and it works in other jurisdictions,” and then say, “We want to hide from scrutiny. We want to hide this bill from scrutiny; we don’t want to be exposed.” And based on what they are saying, urgency is the issue for them.
It sounds to me as if it is a bill that really does not need to be debated for a period—it could receive scrutiny—but it is not going to be because the Greens and the Labor Party want to ram this through. Let me say, that only hardens my view on this. If they are not prepared to—
Mr Steel: On a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, I would ask your guidance as to whether Mr Hanson is in fact allowed to provide a right of reply to what is a procedural motion, not a substantive motion.
Mrs Dunne: The standard form in this place is that, when there is a question before the chair, the person who initiates the motion has the right to close. It is quite simple.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Cody): Mr Hanson, can you continue to close the debate, noting there are three minutes left.
MR HANSON: That is a very odd position of the Labor Party. Now we have a situation where the Labor Party not only want to shut down any scrutiny of this bill but they want to shut down the debate on referring it to a committee. They do not even want the debate to continue on referring it to a committee. I can only assume that some of the points I was making were hitting home. Otherwise I cannot understand why Mr Steel is—
Mrs Dunne: He does not know his standing orders.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video