Page 516 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (10.42): The government will not be agreeing to this motion today. The confected outrage from Mrs Burke ignores the basic point that today there are a number of items of executive business on the notice paper that the government wishes to proceed with. There is no disagreement that the issue of childcare is important—of course it is important—but it is a matter to be dealt with in private members’ business, and private members’ business was dealt with yesterday. It was unfortunate that that was delayed due to other items in the Assembly—mostly because of the refusal of the Liberal Party to approach the issue that was dealt with yesterday in a sensible, non-political way. But that is a different debate.
The debate today is about whether executive business should be delayed simply because of the events in the Assembly yesterday. The government’s view is that it should not. Dr Foskey’s motion should have precedence for private members’ business on the next sitting Wednesday. That is the most appropriate way to deal with it. There is a range of important items that need to be dealt with today, in particular the Children and Young People Amendment Bill, which has quite a number of amendments that will need detailed debate today, as well as arrangements for insurance for the racing industry and for workers compensation. These are important matters listed in an orderly way for debate today, and the government will not be agreeing to any suspension of standing orders for any item of private members’ business today, regardless of its worth; that is appropriately dealt with in private members’ business on the next sitting Wednesday.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.44): I thank members for their great interest in the issue of childcare, which interest, unfortunately, was not so evident yesterday. I support the Liberals’ motion. I have noted that, because there was no Assembly business today, we had 45 minutes when we could have dealt with this, especially understanding that it is going to be some time before it is going to be possible, unless there is some other suspension of standing orders, to discuss this motion, due to the roster that we have for private members’ day. It is unfortunate to see private members’ day eroded on a discussion that could have been had at some other time.
It is also of concern to me that the issue that was touched upon yesterday was not really allowed to be dealt with properly. I believe the government was far too premature in the way it responded to the criticism that it needs to understand that the role of the opposition and indeed the cross bench is to raise just these kinds of issues. Although I was not allowed to move an amendment to the motion, the amendment that I would have moved was along the lines of let us look at some of the more objective reporting that might have informed these issues. Rather than it being my opinion or your opinion and what I say are the facts or what you say are the facts, let us have a look at the ACT report on ACT policing. We have asked for that many times over the last year or so—I know that it exists, although perhaps copies are under lock and key—because that would provide some light on the matter, with an expert opinion, rather than just slinging accusations across the chamber.
So yesterday was very disappointing to me, particularly in not getting the motion up in time to really debate it. I do not know what the government thinks on this. I do not even know how much it was trying to get out of talking about it. We cannot know, because we never got up to it. To me this is a real concern about transparency and accountability, and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .