Page 240 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
former affected home owners as far as practicable while providing balance against the government’s broader policy objectives and financial imperatives.
The rejection of this instrument would remove this balance and go against the policy direction that has already been established through the passage of the bill. It will create inequity amongst purchasers of such blocks and be inconsistent with the objectives of the loose-fill asbestos eradication scheme.
Offering land rent leases against blocks repurchased through the first right of refusal presents an important form of assistance for those eligible families. Disallowance of this instrument would disadvantage those families and could present a barrier to them rejoining their former neighbourhoods.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (12.12): I want to comment on the irregularity of this whole process and also to reflect on the lack of knowledge that the minister seems to show about how his own legislation operates. This matter was discussed in the administration and procedure committee. It was quite clear that this disallowance motion had until next sitting Thursday to run. There were two disallowance motions. One would run out before next Thursday and one would run out next Thursday. One was listed after discussion in administration and procedure because the normal time for dealing with disallowance motions is during Assembly business on a Thursday.
It is the form and practice of this place that the person who lodges a motion or who has a bill has control of it when it is debated. There has been commentary in the companion to the standing orders and there has been a lot of backwards and forwards over the last few years that show that the practice of the Assembly taking command or taking control of a member’s item of business is not in accordance with the form and practice—it is questionable. It is quite questionable, and the companion says that this is quite a questionable practice. It is entirely discourteous in the way that it was done this morning. Linking two suspensions of standing orders together, in case someone did not notice, just shows the mean and tricksy attitude of this government.
Then to have the minister stand here and say, “We have to do it because the system cannot operate while this disallowance motion is there,” is utterly wrong. The regulation works from the moment the ink is dry on the notification. It continues until and if it is disallowed. So the regulation is working at this moment. For a minister to come into this place and say that his legislation does not work because of the existence of a disallowance motion is wrong. It shows that this man is not capable of being a minister in this place. What we are seeing here today is questionable practice, discourtesy—discourtesy to the member and discourtesy to the people concerned with this who may have an issue with it—and a minister who does not know his brief.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call Mr Coe—no, I call Mr Rattenbury.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.15): With the indulgence of members, I just stepped out of—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video