Page 2388 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 30 July 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As has been mentioned on a number of occasions, Ms Lawder has made a number of requests for a briefing on this bill and they have been refused. How can you possibly refuse a request for a briefing because it was apparent that a view had been formed on the bill without seeking permission from the minister? I am assuming the minister thinks that when Ms Lawder was asked by a journalist for her thoughts on the bill she should just have said, “I’m going to have to just seek permission from Mr Steel to see what it is that I can say.” It is just absurd. It is petty party politics.
How are we expected to properly debate a bill of this nature when the relevant minister plays these silly little political games? This is a basic function of ministers in this place in regards to the path towards passing legislation. How can the minister possibly justify this political bullying? That is what it is; it is basically saying, “Well, I’m sorry opposition members, I basically don’t rate you in this place and I’m not going to consult with you.”
I cannot believe that contempt being shown of this entire parliament and of the people of Canberra. I do not understand how the minister could possibly withhold a briefing on such an important bill. The minister himself has stated that this is a groundbreaking bill, that we are a nation-leader in this space and that this has never been done before. “It is groundbreaking, but I’m not just going to sit down and tell you all about it. Just trust me that we’ve got it right”. I fully support the referral of this bill to committee.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.57), in reply: This is an important motion. The minister has said that there has been consultation and there was an exposure draft. But the level of consultation was quite poor, which is evidenced by the fact that he would not be even vaguely generous in offering a briefing to Ms Lawder and it seems not even to Ms Le Couteur who supports the legislation. So you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Ms Le Couteur says that she supports the legislation—no briefing.
Ms Lawder expressed concern in a response to a journalist from the Canberra Times and the minister has decided that he knows better and that he should therefore refuse to provide briefings to members in this place. It is an extraordinary precedent and it is extraordinarily poor form from someone who does not understand the forms of the house. He thinks he does and he likes to take witty points of order—most of which are wrong most of the time—and he has shown just how poor his understanding of the processes of this place are by his performance on this bill not just today but in refusing to provide briefings to non-government members in this place.
This is a complex piece of legislation. It is by the minister’s own admission Australia-first legislation and it has real implications. The scrutiny committee has raised considerable concerns about this report, and if the opposition and the crossbenchers have not been briefed it is important for this chamber to delve as much as possible into just how effective the other consultation was. After listening to the pet shop owners last week it was clear that they were not particularly well consulted and that some of the provisions in this legislation are against their interests.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video