Page 4100 - Week 13 - Thursday, 6 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
procedure by setting a three-month time limit from when a statement is made in the Assembly; and proposing a resolution of continuing effect concerning sub judice, which is based on a similar United Kingdom House of Commons resolution.
As can be seen from what I have outlined, there are some significant proposed changes to the way the Assembly operates. I think it is important that any organisation should, from time to time, look at the way they operate and see whether any improvements can be made. It is the view of the committee that these changes will enhance the operation of the Assembly and its committees.
In addition to the more significant changes, the committee has also suggested some amendments to make the standing orders easier to read. Words and phrases such as “in the manner herein before provided”, “thereon”, “dissentient voice”, “the same conforms with” and “acquired therewith” have all been suggested for omission.
Members will note that I moved a motion that the report be adopted. If this motion is agreed to, the changes to the standing orders and continuing resolutions will be adopted by the Assembly and the revised standing orders will then take effect. It is intended that this matter be brought on for debate early in 2008.
I thank the Speaker and his staff, the Clerk, Ms Janice Rafferty and Ms Celeste Italiano, for their work on this report. In my office, I would particularly like to thank Tim McGhie, who took a profound interest in this matter and has been very helpful to me. I commend the report to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Corbell) adjourned to the next sitting.
Territory–owned Corporations Amendment Bill 2007
Debate resumed from 22 November 2007, on motion by Mr Stanhope:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (4.57): The Liberal Party will be supporting this bill, which provides for an extension of time to remove Rhodium Asset Solutions Ltd from schedule 1 of the act that this bill amends. That is because the sale of Rhodium, which the 2007-08 budget anticipated being completed by 30 June 2007, has not yet occurred, and neither the budget nor the second appropriation anticipated any administrative costs or revenues associated with Rhodium’s continued trading beyond 30 June this year.
The question must be asked: why has this sale been delayed? I know Rhodium is still the subject of an inquiry by the public accounts committee, so I will not go into too much detail there. Let me just say that the delay in the sale of Rhodium must surely be attributable to a number of factors. The primary factor, no doubt, would be that any organisation seeking to buy Rhodium would, in a process of due diligence and discovery, become aware of what it is actually taking on.
With respect to what any prospective buyer would be purchasing, the woes of Rhodium’s past—the lack of direction from the government, particularly the lack of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .