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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3825 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Ms Tucker has acted with no consultation whatsoever. She did exactly the same thing with regard to the disability inquiry, ensuring of course that I had no time to prepare a response to the issues she was raising.

I come to the substantive issue. I will try to do the best I can without having the briefings that are appropriate in dealing with these issues. We have a set of processes that we normally stay within. There are times when we need to suspend standing orders. The government itself will be seeking to suspend standing orders a number of times today, but I have spoken to every single grouping within the Assembly to make sure they understand why I want to suspend standing orders and what we want to achieve. That is how the consultation process works, Ms Tucker.

This time, because there is something important to you, you seem to think that you can put the consultation process aside. I ask you to withdraw this motion. It is entirely inappropriate to bring it on without notice and without speaking to me about the issues, particularly when it is such a confronting motion that suggests that we have no sense of understanding of people in poverty. This is an inappropriate way to go about the business of the house. I ask you to withdraw this motion.

MR WOOD (12:03): Mr Speaker, the opposition will be supporting Ms Tucker's motion. Mr Moore says it is inappropriate, notwithstanding that the government is going to suspend standing orders on other issues. I would ask Mr Moore to indicate what else can be done. What alternatives are there? This is the last sitting day of the year. Measures are proposed to come into effect from 1 January next year. If there is a view to be expressed, it has to be expressed today. There is no other time to do it. If the Assembly wants to assert its role here as it has done in recent times on other matters and if we are to say what we think, this is the time - right now - so that the government can take note.

This housing issue has been a vexed question for quite some time. It is now a year and a half since Mr Smyth brought in measures that were fairly contentious in a couple of areas, particularly the one on permanency of tenure, which has caused a deal of discussion.

A committee of this Assembly brought down a unanimous report on these issues. It has been rejected, notwithstanding that the government says it agrees in principle. We need to have our say. We need to push our point of view, and this is the time it needs to be done.

MR KAINE (12:05): I am a bit reluctant to be bringing on at this stage business that is going to take a considerable amount of time when we have a pretty full agenda. But Ms Tucker and Mr Wood raised some very important points. The minister does not want to debate this matter today, because he is not across the issues. He brought down a comprehensive response to a committee report only this week. Did he table a response which he did not understand, the issues contained in which he was not on top of? I find that a little incomprehensible. Having tabled that response, he must know what was in it and he must know what the issues are.

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