Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1768 ..

MR MOORE (3.54): This gives me a great opportunity to speak to the amendment, but just before I do I should take a long sip of cold water.

MR SPEAKER: I have already done that.

MR MOORE: I need it to smooth out my palate. A little asterisk on the notice paper indicates that this motion has just been put on the notice paper for the first time. Yet Ms McRae challenges us to tell her which parliaments actually use this process and which ones do not. Knowing about this motion yesterday, I did not have the time to research that; but I am very happy for Ms McRae, or Mr Berry when he replies, to tell us which parliaments. I would really like the information, Mr Berry, to convince us that it is worth sending this to the Administration and Procedure Committee. I would like you to explain also the difference between the upper house and the lower house, while you are at it.

I have no intention of sending this to the Administration and Procedure Committee, because I do not want to waste my time on that committee with such a nonsense motion. It does not recognise the way the Hare-Clark system operates. It does not recognise that we have proportional representation. There is simply no good reason that has been put for it. If we are going to change standing orders, then we would normally expect a very good reason. If we are going to give reasonable consideration to something within a committee, then we would expect a fairly convincing argument that there is at least a good reason to consider it. It may well be that we have not yet worked out what the other arguments are and therefore we would not take it through a committee process, but it seems to me that a committee process would be a great waste of time. It is far better for the Labor Party to get their heads together and work out a much more effective way to increase the profile of their leader.

MS TUCKER (3.57): I would like to speak briefly to this amendment. Ms McRae said something that I thought was quite interesting. The reason that the Greens are concerned about this motion is that the research we have been able to do in the short time we have had shows, I state again, that it is in the interests of democracy and representation that we all have the opportunity to ask a question. That is actually in standing orders to ensure that the process is not manipulated by a party. I am not particularly concerned about the individuals here right now. Ms McRae seems to think that that would be the concern. I am interested in the system working in the way that it was designed to work. I am actually interested in democracy - a much bigger issue than the individual people sitting here right now.

MR CORBELL (3.58): I rise very briefly on this issue, simply to refute some points made by Ms Tucker. No-one's opportunity to ask a question is being denied under this proposal. If this proposal is successful, members will have an opportunity to proxy their question to another member. That is all it means. It happens in every other parliament in every other State and Territory in this country. Why the hell can it not happen here? That is exactly the question the Labor Party is asking.

MR SPEAKER: Because I do not think they are going to allow it. That is why.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .