Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 968 ..
MR SPEAKER: It does anticipate debate on something that is on the notice paper. Mrs Dunne, I draw your attention to standing order 59:
A Member may not anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper: Provided that in determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, regard should be had by the Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the Assembly within a reasonable time.
I have to be careful about how I regard this matter, as it is a bill of my own. I just warn you about anticipating debate on the bills which are before the place. I ask you to refrain. I will be watching you closely.
MRS DUNNE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well spotted, Ms Dundas. In the spirit of things, I will not digress on to something I was going to quote. Rather I go back to Katherine's letter. It said:
Last year I wrote to all MLA's about my experience urging them to retain the informed consent provisions.
This is not about the bills. Katherine said she received only four responses, and she attached the most recent response, one she had received from Mr Stanhope.
MR SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, this is the sort of thing I wanted you to avoid.
MRS DUNNE: I am not talking about the debate. I am talking about the letters she received.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but you were also talking about the informed consent provisions of the bills. This goes to the issue of the debate.
MRS DUNNE: I promise not to talk about the informed consent provisions of the bill.
MR SPEAKER: I ask you to refrain. Ms Dundas raised an legitimate point of order.
MRS DUNNE: I am trying to be as careful as I can. The point Katherine makes is that most MLAs have not responded to her letter. She draws particular attention to the letters she has received. Although she has raised a number of issues with members, she has received form letters and raises particularly what she received from Mr Stanhope. She says that he does not seem to have fully understood her concern. She writes:
He did not address any of the points I outlined in my original letter. I then replied to his response in an attempt to further explain. He responded to this letter with almost exactly the same wording. I assume it was a basic form letter. Is this the best we can expect from our Chief Minister?
I will not go on, Mr Speaker, because that would contravene the standing orders.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .