Page 3806 - Week 12 - Thursday, 24 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to some agreement about these and that, whilst we have had a robust discussion about some of those elements, I think on the whole we have come up with a very positive reform. I would like to thank the Chief Minister and her colleagues in the Labor Party for their support for these reforms and the constructive way that we have been able to consider these issues.
That stands in stark contrast to the approach of the Canberra Liberals, and in particular Mr Hanson, who have totally refused to engage on the issue. I should clarify that by saying that I welcome the role that the Speaker has played in engaging on these issues. I simply endorse her earlier comments that the discussions we have had and the way in which we have worked through the detail have been very useful.
These are significant reforms. To come in here and try to characterise changed positions through the drafting process as some form of inability to draft—what is the right way to describe it in parliamentary terms, members?—is simply disingenuous. It fails to acknowledge the standard drafting process in which there are different views on this. It is a significant reform. There have been different views on how we should get there. I think the fact that we are able to come forward with agreed amendments is pretty healthy and reflects well on most members in this place.
Mr Hanson came in here and gave the spray that I think I am going to cop a lot of times this term about process issues. It is quite interesting to reflect on that. Thinking about process, the earlier discussion about the standards commissioner had to be adjourned because I did not see the amendments from the Liberal Party until five o’clock yesterday afternoon. I tabled that motion the first time last Assembly. I have taken it to the administration and procedures committee probably half a dozen times this year to have those discussions in a mature, sensible and timely manner and to reflect the fact that there are three parties in this Assembly.
The administration and procedures committee is the place where these matters should be dealt with. But the style of Mr Hanson and his colleagues is such that at five o’clock yesterday afternoon I finally got a copy of the amendments he proposed. I actually think there are some drafting errors in those and there is a discussion still to be had. It has set up what is a double threshold test, which I think is not only inefficient but would provide the proposed commissioner for standards with a conflict of interest.
Let us talk about drafting capability. That is a matter where I think it is appropriate we go off and have some further discussion, which is why I am quite comfortable to see that debate adjourned. But to simply come in here and make that sort of observation reflects a hypocrisy of position that is really quite untenable, particularly given that that reform had been on the table for more than a year and at five o’clock yesterday afternoon, when this matter was finally listed, I received the amendments from the Liberal Party. It is really quite extraordinary.
The way in which Mr Hanson is dealing himself out of the game on these matters is actually quite embarrassing. This legislation has been around for quite some time. My office has certainly sought to contact the staff of the Liberal Party to discuss the details of the legislation, acknowledging the significant nature of the reforms and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video