Page 3396 - Week 10 - Thursday, 20 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The committee considers that the issues raised in the petitions are already being considered as part of its inquiry on dangerous driving and therefore will not be conducting a separate inquiry into the petitions.
Standing orders—suspension
MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra—Assistant Minister for Economic Development, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Business and Better Regulation, Minister for Human Rights and Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (10.22): I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Private Members Business order of the Day No 5 being the Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Bill 2021 being called on and debated forthwith; and, should the debate not be concluded by Question time, the resumption of debate be set for after the conclusion of the Private Members Business notice No 3.
I think the detail of what we are looking to do today is set out in the motion I have moved, so I will leave it there for now.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (10.23): We do not support this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, we have standing orders and we have established processes in this place. We have the government business and the meeting where the government’s business is laid out, and we have private members business which is allocated. What is happening here is that the government is having two bites of the cherry. If Mr Pettersson wants to bring this back—it is private members business—then, as you are aware, Madam Speaker, and as everyone should be aware in this place, it gets listed at the administrative proceedings meeting, it gets brought on and it takes up a slot, as we have all agreed to in this place. Essentially what happens through this process is Mr Pettersson gets endless opportunity to debate his motion in this place. If he wants to bring it back, bring it back.
This is not something that was advised to us previously. I had heard rumours of it earlier in the week. Mr Pettersson did not even know whether it was going to be coming on or not. This is a very substantive piece of legislation. This is not a trivial matter. For it to be brought on the way it is, is an extension of what has been a pretty shabby process. I saw that Mr Pettersson’s Facebook page is lauding the process. He has a time line of how this all happened. What is omitted from that time line, though, is taking it to the election, because, as we all remember, this whole shabby process, which is going to continue today, hoodwinked the electorate.
Members interjecting—
You went to the last election saying: “We are going to do a review of drug policy. We are going to do that review and take incremental steps.” And what happened?
Members interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: Members. Members. Members!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video