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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2524 ..

MR SPEAKER: Would you take note of that, please, Mrs Cross.

MRS CROSS: Mr Speaker, I did withdraw that. (Extension of time granted.) Talk about the pot calling the kettle black—Mr Nice Guy who never describes us in any adverse way.

Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: you have just directed Mrs Cross to pay attention to debating the substance of the issue. She immediately leaps into a continuing personal attack on me that has absolutely nothing to do with the legislation. I do not mind an occasional barb across the chamber, Mr Speaker, but to hear the last 10 minutes of personal mudslinging against me and my attributed personality weaknesses as far as Mrs Cross is concerned, I think, is a bit beyond the pale. You have already directed her to debate the substance of the legislation. Surely she should just get on and do that rather than continue this ongoing diatribe we are hearing at the moment.

MR SPEAKER: Mrs Cross, it is disorderly to impute improper motives and personally reflect on members. It is also disorderly to use offensive words. “Offensive” is really a matter of how members feel about issues, and I think Mr Corbell is entitled to feel that he has had a fair stream of criticism which he might be offended by. I think it might add to the quality of the debate if we tone it down a bit.

MRS CROSS: Mr Speaker, if I have used words that have offended Mr Corbell, I withdraw those words.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mrs Cross.

MRS CROSS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do have some questions relating to the approach the minister has taken to this bill, which is very sad. And the questions I have—and he might like to answer these when we go into the detail stage later tonight—are these: did the minister have any intentions of slowing the debate on this bill down? Did he attempt in any way to stop this bill from going through, aside from what we have seen transparently here today? Does he care about our local pharmacies? Does he want to protect small business in the ACT? Does he have a concrete position now on whether he wants pharmacies in supermarkets and he is too afraid to say it?

I have not heard Mr Corbell say that in his speech, and I would very much like to know, as I am sure the pharmacy industry would like to know. At least if you know where you stand with people, you know where they are coming from in a debate. I have not yet heard from Mr Corbell an argument that we, the members, have not been able to address by this amendment and ongoing collaboration not only with each other but also with the industry. I have not heard that yet. Once we have addressed this concern that Mr Corbell raised about the technical issues in the bill—once we have addressed the issues with the industry and with each other and we seek some consensus, which I am hoping we will—I do not know what there is left for Mr Corbell to be concerned about, aside from the fact that the bill is not in his name.

I might be wrong there; I could be misjudging him. I do not know. But I am concerned that, for someone who says they are concerned about the interests of the community, it does not appear that that is put into action. I suppose that is why, as a newer member of

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