Page 500 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Orr): Members! Mr Pettersson, please continue.
MR PETTERSSON: The conservative Canberra Liberals know that they do not have the numbers in this place to stop this legislation going through, so what they are doing—and it is something they do every time something contentious comes up—is using every procedural trick in the book to stall debate.
In this case they are trying to refer it to a committee. Many times, that is a noble goal. However, people in this place should see through this. This is a conservative party that have said that they are opposed to any changes to our cannabis laws. They have said that they are happy with the status quo. First and foremost, we should note that they are not telling the truth, because they do not like the status quo. However, they know they cannot actually express their true views on drug law reform.
What I would say to any member in this place who is watching or listening to this debate, and I particularly include our friends the Greens, is that you are letting them stall this debate. If they are successful in this, if they can refer this to a committee, this place can no longer consider legislation until it comes back from a committee. That would mean that this place could not pass cannabis legalisation until the committee process is done.
Madam Assistant Speaker, they are laughing and smiling because that is what they want. They do not want this legislation to be passed. They do not even want to change it. They want it to die and fail. To anyone who would aid them in achieving that goal, I have to say: please reconsider.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (3.49): I had not intended to speak on this as it was a simple referral but having been ascribed a range of motives and given Mr Pettersson’s plea, I will put some facts on the table. The reason we have agreed to the bill going to a committee is that there are now a significant number of amendments to the bill. Our experience of this place is that when you have a large number of amendments, it can be valuable to have a committee process because things get worked out by the committee. It is as simple as that. Members of this place know that we have a longstanding view that the more legislation that goes to committees, the better. There are real opportunities to get matters sorted out by a committee.
However, I am concerned that some of these referrals are being put out for extended periods of time. I intend, after this discussion, to draft a letter to the Speaker to ask that the Speaker have, at a meeting with committee chairs, a discussion about how we seek to be able to look at pieces of legislation in committees in a more timely manner. It is problematic to have a piece of legislation being looked at by a committee and taking months and months.
It is quite important that we start to think about whether, as an Assembly, we want committees to be able to look at pieces of legislation more frequently. We will have to pull up our socks a little bit and find a more timely way in which committees can examine pieces of legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video