Page 5121 - Week 12 - Thursday, 27 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I thank Ms Hunter for her contribution to this report. I thought that our conversations in the committee were quite cordial. They were not disparaging. We put some honest things on the table. I do not think anybody took any offence, even though we were able to say, “We think you guys are taking advantage of this, that and the other.” But the way in which those conversations occurred, there was no invective, there was no harsh language. It was quite cordial. I express my disappointment that we needed to descend into that this morning.
I have also expressed my disappointment that this is a report coming into the chamber. It was presented by the chair. I would have preferred it if Mrs Dunne had stuck to the script as the chair of the committee and perhaps then made a separate speech. We on this side would have given Mrs Dunne leave to speak again if she wanted to put her own view.
Mr Seselja: He would like to see you muzzled, Vick. That is what he would like.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says, “He would like to see you muzzled, Vick.” That was very quickly following what I said, which was that we would have given her leave to speak again. There is either a deafness or an inconsistency across the chamber. I do not understand that.
Mr Speaker, this report was almost inevitable. The way in which this has been represented to the Assembly is almost inevitable. It is where those opposite will say one thing as a collective, hope for something entirely different and then turn around and blame somebody else for the process that they themselves will benefit by and that they themselves have benefited by. I think the community will judge.
I turn to the matter of the enhancement provisions. The Attorney-General indicated to this place very early in the piece that if he could not get, by providing the bill to this chamber, the 66 per cent majority required under the entrenchment provisions, he would not waste people’s time bringing it forward. That is a reasonable position to take.
He also explained, and this position was agreed with by the electoral commissioner, that a referendum is a costly exercise. Why would you do it? This is not something on which the livelihoods of our people out there in the community depend. This is largely an academic exercise around the voting system. It is not of such import out there. It is not a conversation at the dinner table of such import that we need to go to a considerable expense when we could use the money better elsewhere. It is as simple as that. There is no big agenda behind this. I wish those guys over there would get over their paranoia and understand the realities of the day. We can count. Why would you do it?
We also note that two-thirds of the voting potential in the committee said, “Let us go ahead with it.” But those opposite will use anything they can to get their own way. They do not respect the will of this Assembly. They decided: “No, you need 66 per cent. You are not getting it. Too bad! It is not going to happen.”
Opposition members interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video