Page 901 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
started many years before self-government. I think it is also reasonable, given that history and that legacy, that the commonwealth share the costs of whatever inquiry takes place, because undoubtedly it will be an expensive process. And it is money we need to spend at some point. I think we should continue to work harder to get the commonwealth on board. I do not agree that we should just—as Mr Hanson proposes today for his own motivations—go ahead with this without seeking to work harder to get that in place. I think it will be a far more thorough and a far more effective inquiry if the commonwealth are involved.
I would ask Mr Hanson to recognise these limitations. I would ask that he does not seek to politicise the issue by claiming that the government or I do not want to deal with the Mr Fluffy issue. I found some of the arguments put forward by Mr Hanson today and the motivations he ascribed to me and some members of the Labor Party to be, frankly, grubby. I have been absolutely clear that I believe there needs to be an inquiry. The fact that we have a difference on how and when that should happen does not warrant the sort of aspersions that are being cast by Mr Hanson. I know there are some people in the community who share those views. They want the inquiry, they want it now—they wanted it sooner than now. But I respectfully disagree with them for the reasons I have spelt out today. That does not mean I do not agree with them that there needs to be an inquiry. There must and there should be.
We must work to get the right inquiry so that we get the right outcomes and so that we resolve the many issues that are being asked about in the community. It is quite clear to me that people have a number of different things they want to see come out of the inquiry. I think we have some more work to do to pin that down. I was surprised by the terms of reference proposed by Mr Hanson. I do not think they are the right terms of reference either. Rather than slugging this out in the chamber, let us get on with working together behind the scenes to get this sorted and come to this place with agreed terms of reference. I think we can make much better progress on this issue.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.27): I am disappointed but not surprised that this motion will not get support.
Just turning to Mr Rattenbury’s comments, what I would say is that if Mr Rattenbury has preferred terms of reference for the inquiry, I would be delighted to see the terms of reference. I forwarded this document to him well in advance of this debate; I have not received any response on the terms of reference or any commentary on it to date. I retain the offer: if Mr Rattenbury would like to work on the terms of reference and then get back to me with what he thinks are better terms of reference, I would be very open to that; very open to that in terms of the time and the scope for the inquiry, in terms of pre-self-government, post-self-government and what times they are, and in terms of the matters that are inquired into. Let us do that. I look forward to him responding with better terms of reference, as he has alluded to today. If he does not like my terms of reference, if he thinks they can be done better, I expect him to come back with better terms of reference. I am a bit surprised that he has not moved an amendment to the effect today—unless that is yet another little excuse not to proceed with this today. I look forward to him sending new terms of reference to me.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video