Page 1040 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Standing order 46
Statement by Speaker
MADAM SPEAKER: Before I call anybody else, I would like to go back to the discussion of standing order 46. Mr Rattenbury sought the chair’s leave under standing order 46. I gave leave and then I gave leave to Mr Coe as well. On reflection, and on going back to the standing orders, I stand by the original point that I made that these matters should be dealt with not in the middle of debate—that is standing order 47 as I said at the time—but at the conclusion of debate when there is no other question before the Assembly.
It was a lapse on my part, but I do not think it was a fatal error. But I think that members should be aware of what the standing orders say and in future raise matters in relation to standing order 46 when there is no other question before the Assembly.
Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services—Standing Committee
Order to table
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (10.39), by leave: I move:
That the Chair’s Draft Report of the Standing Committee on Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services’ inquiry into the Planning and Development (Project Facilitation) Amendment Bill 2014 be tabled by close of business today.
MR CORBELL: Madam Speaker, I move this motion today because in the absence of a report from this committee I think it is important that we see what the chair proposed to the committee. That is the purpose of this proposed resolution. It is quite clear, and we have had it confirmed from both sides of this chamber, that the committee considered the chair’s report and it agreed to the substance of the report but not to its final endorsement. That, of course, highlights the obstructive approach adopted by those members opposite.
If they really felt so strongly about this report, why did they agree to each and every paragraph proposed by the chair? That really is the question that they need to answer. If this was such a terrible report and it was something that they fundamentally disagreed with, why did they tick through and pass through and agree to every single paragraph proposed? Why did they do it? This really does highlight the obstructive behaviour that we now see from Mr Coe and Mr Wall.
I have to say that it is Mr Coe and Mr Wall. It is not any other member opposite. It is Mr Coe and Mr Wall who are playing this game and they are wrecking the processes of committees in this place in the process. For example, we have got Mr Smyth presenting a report later. I understand that a report is to be presented. So that highlights that committees can deliver reports.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video