Page 515 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
delivered. The motion moved by the Chief Minister, in effect soon after question time, delayed the remaining business listed for the day. “Hypocrisy” would be the poignant descriptor to use under the circumstances.
The Chief Minister, although he implied that he would like to see a rigorous and enlightening debate occur in relation to childcare, particularly in relation to the motion brought on by Dr Foskey, has not given the permission. Yesterday, the Chief Minister gave the Assembly the impression that he was keen to see this debate. However, naturally, as this majority government is wont to do, it brought forth a motion to discuss a matter that had already been discussed in the Assembly earlier:
That this Assembly directs Mr Pratt, Mrs Burke and Mr Stefaniak to table, by 5.00 pm today, all information in their possession relevant to the assertions and claims made by them in questions asked yesterday and today in relation to alleged criminal behaviour in Campbell, Erindale and at the Canberra Show.
In response, Mr Smyth accepted the challenge of the Chief Minister and his colleagues, which took this unnecessary debate on to 4.04 pm. Again at 5.32 pm, Mr Smyth sought to suspend standing orders to allow Mr Pratt to respond to Mr Stanhope’s motion. The series of events had delayed other motions listed on the daily program and delayed private business. I know Dr Foskey shares my concern, as her very own motion was postponed due to this unforeseen action. The Chief Minister, in response, argued:
The government opposes the motion for the suspension of standing orders. Under the standing orders, we would be debating now, but for this move to justify a position, the provision of childcare in the ACT. We would and should be debating under the standing orders an important motion, a motion to be moved by Dr Foskey, on the provision of childcare in the ACT. That is what we should be doing now.
It is important that the affairs of the Assembly be conducted in an orderly manner as a result of that and our determination to ensure that that is indeed how the Assembly and the chamber operate …
Fine words, aren’t they, Mr Speaker? He goes on:
… it was agreed by all parties that the order of business today would involve in notice No 3 an important debate on the provision of childcare and it is very important that we get on to that.
It is funny that we never did. If he argues that suspension of standing orders would delay business of the Assembly, why would he seek to place a motion before the Assembly to delay all other proceedings in the first place? I say that it was a blatant use of executive business time. It obviously prevented the opposition and crossbenchers from debating a very, very important issue. What was the Chief Minister afraid of being debated? Did he not want the debate for childcare to come on? What are the problems in childcare? Or was it simply that he was just trying to cover up for a minister for police who has got into a bit of hot water?
I ask that we suspend standing orders today. I ask that Dr Foskey’s motion be brought on in this house forthwith. Ted is laughing—he is leaving; he is all right—but the people of the ACT depend upon quality issues that relate to the ACT being debated in this house.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .