Page 3469 - Week 11 - Thursday, 19 September 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.59): I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Question resolved in the negative.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.59): Before I talk to the substance of the bill I would just like to further reiterate my points on some of the comments raised by Mr Rattenbury in the chamber. It is very important that when we discuss things in this Assembly that we know that they have been well considered and well conceived. I would like to reiterate that point. As to Mr Rattenbury’s howls of protest that there should just be a free flow of ideas and anyone can move anything they like, that is simply not the practice of this place. There is a discipline in this place and it is normal for the executive to move matters that are the responsibility of the executive. It is not for a member of the executive to freestyle and just move what they want.
A good example of that would be the Marriage Equality Bill this morning. I think there would be a number of members on that side of the chamber who would have an interest in that piece of legislation. I imagine Mr Barr would have a particular interest. I know that he has been a strong advocate of marriage equality. But he did not bring the legislation forward. It was done by the Attorney-General because he is the minister responsible.
That is the point that I am making. Mr Rattenbury has made the decision to join the executive, to be a member of cabinet, and therefore he should make sure that if he has an idea and has something he wants to put forward he puts it through the executive and it is dealt with in that fashion, rather than, particularly in the case of this bill, having an ill-conceived piece of legislation that is now desperately being cleaned up by the Attorney-General to make it workable. That is what has happened here. I think it would be far better if that were done within the cabinet by cabinet ministers rather than in the Assembly. This piece of legislation has previously been adjourned by the government. That is my point and it is one that we will maintain.
Moving from there to this piece of legislation itself—
MADAM SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Hanson, before you proceed, could I draw members’ attention to the fact that the time for executive members’ business has expired.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.01), by leave: I move:
That the time allotted to Executive Member’s business be extended to allow the Assembly to complete its consideration of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 2013.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video