Page 2055 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77. Ordered that the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.
MR CORBELL: So Mr Rattenbury is wrong. Not only is this a case of sour grapes; he is just plain wrong in the way that he interprets the arbiter’s decision. The government obviously put itself in a position where it had to accept the outcome of this process whether or not it was favourable to the government. We had to accept the outcome of this process. The Greens should do the same. The Liberals I think have at least maintained a position that they do not agree with this process and they have been quite clear from day one. They do not want this process. That is their position. The government disagrees with that, but that is their position.
But the Greens have said this is the process they want. They have been in full control of it. They have been able to outline in detail exactly how it will operate. They made amendments which were supported by this place because they have the balance of power in this place. They outlined exactly how the process should operate. They suggested the process after the last election. They insisted upon it. They identified that the New South Wales upper house mechanism or a derivative of it was the most appropriate. They chose the arbiter. Now, after all of that, they say this is not good enough. If they think it is not good enough, it is because what they suggested was not good enough. They need to argue why they made what they now obviously feel is such an appalling mistake. If they feel it is in appalling mistake, let us hear their explanation as to why they think it is, because this is the Greens’ process lock, stock and barrel.
The government has indicated previously—I indicated this earlier this year—that it does believe there may be grounds for a refining of the process. One mechanism that I have already foreshadowed in this place is a requirement for a member objecting to the release of a document and, therefore, triggering the process for arbitration to give reasons for their objection rather than simply say that they object.
I foreshadowed this earlier this year before Sir Laurence Street’s decision, and I foreshadowed it in this place. There should be a process where the member has to substantiate their claim as to why they believe the document should be released. The government would welcome a discussion and a debate on that and look at a suitable form of words that achieves that in the standing orders, because there should be an argument made.
But as the Chief Minister has indicated, that does not mean that this is a one-sided debate. Sir Laurence Street said in his decision that he has not just reviewed the government’s claim; he has reviewed the arguments that have been put repeatedly in this place by members of the opposition and others. He has looked at those arguments; he has read the Hansard. He is familiar with the political arguments that have been made.
He has looked at the media commentary on the matter as well, and there has been a lot of it. To suggest that the argument has been unbalanced or one-sided is simply wrong.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .