Page 1289 - Week 04 - Thursday, 8 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Let us give Mr Rattenbury a pat on the back. His office has made it abundantly clear that if they want to make a statement by leave, they will, and they have in the past circulated those statements with a couple of hours notice so that the member responsible for that portfolio can actually participate in the debate fully. Congratulations, Mr Rattenbury. That is the difference of approach.
As members may or may not be aware, issues have been raised that have been brought to the attention of the manager of government business, Mr Corbell. This new approach is actually causing the secretariat some difficulty because they have not been tabling these statements at the appropriate time as set out in the standing orders. It causes difficulty for the table office. There is confusion or some concern that perhaps the statements tabled by leave, as opposed to ministerial statements by leave, might not be covered because they are not published. It creates confusion and difficulties for the staff. That is why we refused leave. Mr Corbell just gets on his high horse and says, “No, I’m a minister. I can do what I want.” What was suggested to him was a process––
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, I interrupt you for a moment. If you would just sit down for a minute. Can you stop the clock, please? Mr Smyth, I think we are talking about the fact that you have not been granted leave to move your amendments. We are not talking about ministerial statements or statements by leave. I understand that they are part of the argument that you wish to prosecute, but let us just stick to the subject, which is the suspension of standing orders so that you can, in fact, do what you want to do. Mr Smyth, you may continue.
MR SMYTH: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would contend it is entirely relevant because Mr Corbell has taken this approach because he did not get leave earlier in the week. He said that. If he wants tit-for-tat politics, that is fine, but I am explaining to members the rationale. There are bigger issues beyond simply giving the opposition two hours notice of a statement. The Greens minister has been able to come to grips with that concept.
Mr Corbell: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order—
Mr Smyth: Can we stop the clock, please?
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have stopped the clock.
Mr Corbell: Mr Smyth is deliberately ignoring your ruling. You have asked him to remain relevant to the question as to why leave should be granted in relation to his amendments. He is ignoring your ruling and I would ask you to again remind him that he must be relevant to the question before the chair.
Mr Hanson: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, Mr Smyth is being entirely relevant to the debate. He is explaining why his amendments need to be considered today, that they are important, that they are relevant to debate, and that the only reason the minister is objecting to them, in his own words, is basically just churlish tit for tat. I think those points being made is entirely relevant to the debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video