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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2593 ..

a sham? Was it something that you did in opposition because it seemed smart. Perhaps it was seen as something with which to slap the government around, but we had the same opinion. We supported it in government and we support it in opposition.

The question for Mr Corbell is: where has your support gone? Where has your support for local industry, local small business people, local residents gone? The comment from those opposite has been that this bill is legislation on the run, but it has been on the table since 31 March. We are always hearing about how we need to work better together and do all those sorts of things. Most of us seem to be able to work together, but not Mr Corbell, because Mr Corbell is always right and, if you pooh-pooh Mr Corbell, he just gets up on his hind legs and points out how everybody else is wrong.

Mr Corbell made an interesting comment when he said, “Don’t go round telling me about pharmacy; I know.” Nobody told him that he was wrong. We have all made comments in this debate in support of pharmacy and what pharmacy does in this community. Those opposite have said that they support pharmacy, but they have a very strange way of showing it. They say that the white paper shows that they are unashamedly pro-business. They have a very strange way of showing it, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Relevance!

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, the relevance is in commenting on remarks made by others in this debate and it goes back to where we get to with this amendment. Ms Tucker summarised the position quite adequately when she said that we all know what is a pharmacy and we all know what is a supermarket. You can get up and give your own definitions, but the territory plan definition will not be used if this matter goes to court. Mr Stanhope is confident that Woolworths will have us in court next week. It will go back to common law, and the common law definitions of a pharmacy and a supermarket are well known and clear to all of us.

This matter is not about semantics. It is about what people out there know as a pharmacy and as a supermarket. You can hide behind fear, concern and all the things you were going to do, but why didn’t you help? You are the one with the department and you are the one with all the legal advice. If you are unashamed in your support of business and if you support Ms Tucker’s motion from when you were in opposition, why didn’t you help make it better, instead of putting us all through this long, drawn-out agony of claim and counterclaim, write and rewrite? I put the question to Mr Corbell: what is it that you are committed to in pharmacy and how do you support it? I think that you have shown today that your support for pharmacy is questionable at best and absent at worst.

This amendment is neat. I think it answers the questions. Tonight we have had the government attempt to set a new standard, that is, that all amendments have to go through the scrutiny of bills committee. Mr Corbell said that the government has waited as this amendment has not been through the scrutiny of bills committee. I do not recall Ms Gallagher putting her amendments of last night through the scrutiny of bills committee. In fact, I do not remember anybody ever putting an amendment through the scrutiny of bills committee. If we want to slow down the process and turn this chamber really and truly into a place that is a joke out there in the public, we will by making statements like that that we have not put this amendment through the scrutiny of bills committee. There is a new low for you!

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