Page 2060 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WHALAN: The purpose of that, Mr Speaker, was to deny me the opportunity to speak; that is all that point of order was about. That is the sort of behaviour that we have come to expect.
Dr Kinloch: Mr Speaker, I ask for an extension of time for the Deputy Chief Minister.
(Extension of time granted)
MR WHALAN: I do thank Dr Kinloch and I appreciate that Dr Kinloch is concerned.
The situation in relation to this legislation is that Mr Collaery's actions are going to deny revenue to the Treasury as a result of the proposed deferral. One of the things that was quite interesting was that last night, when we were debating the issues before the Assembly, Mr Collaery indicated - - -
Mr Collaery: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. This does not clearly relate to this debate; it relates to another debate. The Deputy Chief Minister is wishing to rehearse and retraverse a debate previously.
MR SPEAKER: Please remain relevant, Minister.
MR WHALAN: What Mr Collaery said was that he had given Robyn Nolan an undertaking that the payroll tax legislation would not come on last night. I do not know what sort of conspiracy there is in relation to that. Are you not denying that there was some sort of arrangement? There was some sort of arrangement; that is right. So he is not denying, Mr Speaker, that the undertaking had been given and the mechanism was to talk out the business before the Assembly last night to ensure that we did not get onto that.
That was unnecessary because we were happy to adjourn that until today, but now we have got a new scenario. What was a quite reasonable request, to hold the payroll tax over until today, has now turned into a further request. The request last night was, "Let us not go onto payroll tax because Robyn is arranging a meeting with some people". I am not quite sure what the details were. That was the arrangement last night and we were quite happy with that. But then the ground rules changed again. Last night they said, "Let us put it over until today", and now we have Mr Collaery seeking to apply the gag to today's debate, to put it to some indefinite time in the future.
That is not the way to conduct business. I would submit that it is not a reasonable proposition to put to the Government. To hold over the discussion until tomorrow is reasonable. But, when we agree to that and it is brought on, as it has been brought on in business today, it is totally unacceptable for them to seek a further proposal that it be gagged and then adjourned to some indefinite time in the future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .