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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1906 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment to Mr Humphries' motion to delete the word "forthwith" from paragraph (3) and replace it with the words "on the next day of sitting".

Mr Speaker, what is being proposed here is an absolutely outrageous abuse of the standing orders. Yes, it may be technically accurate, it may be technically consistent, but it is an abuse of the spirit of the standing orders. If this government wants to propose a motion which requests the Assembly to vote again on an issue which has been resolved after lengthy and considered debate in which every member has had the opportunity to participate, then they should do this place the courtesy of requiring that it be done on the next day of sitting. The reason for that is that instead of them rushing it through at 11 o'clock this evening they will be required to publicly justify outside this place why they believe the vote should be recommitted. If they have any strength and belief in what they are doing tonight they will have no problem arguing the case in the wider community.

It has already been accepted and communicated from this place that this Assembly has resolved to establish a select committee on privileges. If the government is unhappy with that and if the government wants the vote to be recommitted, they can try to do that, but they should go outside this place and they should argue why they want it recommitted. They should test it out there.

Attempting to rush it through, to push it through at 11 o'clock in the evening, is an absolutely outrageous move. It is an outrageous move designed no more than to simply subjugate the decision of the Assembly this evening. Mr Speaker, quite simply, this is something which this Assembly should not condone. This Assembly should say, "Have the strength of your conviction. Go outside this place, argue for the vote to be recommitted, and do it on the next day of sitting." Otherwise, Mr Speaker, they are simply cowards. They are cowards who are prepared to abuse the standing orders in order to get the result they want, and to do it in the middle of the night. Mr Speaker, that is the sort of approach we have had from this government this evening. I offer them an opportunity to argue their case in public, to defend their actions in public, and then for this Assembly to reconsider the matter.

The other point I would like to make, Mr Speaker, is that if we are going to recommit the vote it would be nice to hear those members who have not spoken and who obviously feel very strongly about this and want to vote on the motion. We would like them to stand up and explain why they are voting the way they want to vote. I move:

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (11.06): Mr Speaker, there is a very simple explanation for why this is happening this evening. The explanation is that the government sought to avoid this problem by having the debate adjourned and it was made very clear to us that that was not going to happen. That is the reality of the situation. Had we had a more cooperative approach earlier today the matter would have been dealt with at 8 o'clock this evening, after we had come back, when all 17 members were here.

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