Page 1500 - Week 05 - Thursday, 7 April 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let me say that there were discussions and conversations in relation to the formulation of this committee within the caucus. I do not know how the Liberal Party operates, perhaps by osmosis: people imagine or try to guess or send little waves when they are trying to determine who will be represented on a committee. The Labor Party in this process discusses these issues. Perhaps there are others of us who should be sent to jail. The Labor Party proposes that Ms MacDonald chair this particular committee. Ms MacDonald has actually asked for the support of her colleagues in being put forward to chair this committee. I wonder whether Ms MacDonald should go to jail as well, along with Dr Foskey!
This is the nonsense that we are dealing with. We all discuss the make-up, the formation and the membership of committees. Members of the Labor Party come and say to me; “Jon, I’d like to be on this committee. Would you support me as a member of this committee? Would you agree if I was to put myself forward as chair?” Am I, in having a discussion with a member of my government about their desire to be a member of a committee, committing a crime that requires my jailing? This is the level of nonsense we are dealing with here today, that those opposite have actually beaten up the membership of a scrutiny committee as the achieving, the gaining or the requesting of a personal benefit.
What personal benefit is there in Dr Foskey being a member of the scrutiny committee? Dr Foskey is volunteering to serve the people of Canberra by volunteering to be a member of a committee. One of the great ironies here, of course, is that today we will be dealing with Mr Mulcahy’s motion that the committee be constituted by two members of the government, two members of the opposition and Dr Foskey, yet the Liberal party is now suggesting that Dr Foskey should go to jail. Mr Mulcahy in an hour or two will be moving that Dr Foskey be a member of this committee. He is proposing that Dr Foskey actually be a member of this committee. This is absolute nonsense! It is time wasting nonsense.
In the debate on the motion to suspend standing orders, we heard that this government is not prepared to be scrutinised or open. The point has to be made that one-third of the time of this chamber is devoted to private members’ business. That is a greater proportion of private members’ business than in any other parliament in Australia. One-third of all the business of this parliament is devoted to private members’ business. Go up to the House of Representatives and see how much time there is for private members’ business. Choof off to Sydney and drop in on the New South Wales parliament and see how much time there is for private members’ business.
What should we have been doing this morning? What business has this absurd motion prevented us from undertaking today? It has prevented us from introducing a law in relation to the need to register paedophiles in this community. This morning you have prevented us from dealing with a law in relation to paedophilia and the need to protect our children. You have prevented us from dealing with legislation to introduce a whole new regime in relation to sentencing. You have prevented us from dealing with a proposal to establish a whole new human rights commission regime. You have prevented us from dealing with a piece of legislation in relation to health.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .