Page 2488 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Barr!
Mr Hanson: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it has got to a point where this is ridiculous. You continually ask Mr Barr to be quiet; he will continually ignore your rulings. If this was a member of the opposition, I would say that we would have been warned by now. How long are you going to allow Mr Barr to interject and to yell across the chamber without a warning, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is beyond the pale.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Hanson. Mr Barr, please remain silent.
MRS DUNNE: This amendment, more than any, shows that there are real problems with this legislation. The get out of jail free for the minister and Ms Hunter is that it is all disallowable. But it is not. The fact that it is disallowable does not create the level of transparency that Ms Hunter and Ms Gallagher would have people believe, because the formulation and the thinking that go into a determination that may be made by the Treasurer or the minister will not be out there for all to see; it will be the end result of all that work.
Ms Hunter starts off by saying that her amendments will reduce the risk of impropriety. This amendment will create impropriety if there is any chance of it being created. The fact that there are 13 different sorts of criteria and different sorts of determinations that are made in this section alone leave this government open to corruption.
As Mr Seselja said the other day, this is bringing the politics back into planning. This is ACT planning Wollongong style. This is where we get it. Ministers can make determinations that will have a huge impact on the level of tax that is charged, the way it is remitted and all of these sorts of things.
Mr Seselja interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, do not interject on your own person speaking, please.
MRS DUNNE: And here they are. We will see a disallowable instrument, but we will not see the motivation behind that disallowable instrument. We will not see the motivation behind the disallowable instrument; we will not see who said what to whom. These are problems that we will find with this legislation.
Ms Hunter could not comprehensively go through each of these recommendations one by one and give an explanation for them. There is no explanatory statement that goes with these amendments. This is the high and mighty Greens that want an explanatory statement on anything, the high and mighty Greens who want all of these sorts of things to go through the scrutiny process. I do not know how many times my colleagues and I have been lectured in here by Mr Rattenbury and his ilk about how our amendments had not gone through the scrutiny process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video