Page 4502 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS DUNNE: If you would like me to withdraw, I withdraw. But, if the Greens do not know what they are going to do, be up-front and say, “We have not worked out what we are going to do.” That is a reasonable position. But do not make commitments that you cannot keep afterwards. When you make a commitment to someone, look them in the eye and say, “This is what we are going to do,” and then keep your word.
By ordinary parlance, the Greens’ way is not the way that people behave in a civilised way. You cannot continue to negotiate with people when you do not know whether they are going to keep their word from one day to the next. This has been a mark of my experience in dealing with the Greens, and it is unfortunate. It is very unfortunate that on an important matter which is of considerable interest to an important sector of the community, where there is support for the legislation outside the Assembly, the Greens cannot see their way clear to keep their word on this important matter. It is extremely disappointing.
The Liberal opposition will not be supporting the amendments proposed by the Attorney-General because they essentially gut the process. They are okay in that they put some formal structure into what the Attorney-General is currently doing in this case. There is no doubt that that is an improved process from the one that we have had in the past. What we have sought to do is to improve it even further. The government’s proposal guts the original bill and we cannot support the gutting of it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.39), by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 to 9 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 4521].
I think it would be appropriate at this point in time to rebut some of the assertions made by the Liberal Party in the debate during the in-principle stage as to why these amendments are not appropriate.
The first thing I would say is that I have to commend the Greens for the appropriate caution they are showing in relation to this matter. We do have to view judicial appointments as of an entirely different nature from the range of other appointments that executive government makes. That is not to say that those appointments in and of themselves are not important; they are. But judicial appointments are particularly important, and they are particularly important because these are appointments effectively for life. They are not for a limited term. There is no going back. If you make a mistake, the person is probably going to remain in the position. So these are long-term appointments.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .