Page 4643 - Week 12 - Thursday, 1 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Parton: We’ve got a lot in common.
MR PETTERSSON: More than you know, my friend. Drones are interesting, and I think many members of this chamber would appreciate the opportunity to inquire into drones. But you have not asked the committees of this place whether they want to inquire into drones. For example, instead of EDT looking into this inquiry, there could be a select committee. Mr Rattenbury has outlined in many different ways the environmental impact of this drone trial, and so it could be considered by the environment committee. But no, that is not what this discussion is. This is a motion to ram through an inquiry to EDT, and it is not something I can support.
One of the things I find particularly strange about this debate is the change in stance by the Greens. The Greens often put themselves in this place as the arbiter between the two evils of the Labor and Liberal parties but on this debate I feel like the Greens have got it wrong. When we first came into this place, the Greens said this chamber should not be referring inquiries to committees.
Mr Rattenbury has said—and I somewhat understand his reasoning—that at that time the committees had not met and so it should be up to the committees to meet and decide what they want their workload to be and what they want to inquire into. Instead, however, this is the standard that has persisted. That is not the standard that was applicable only at the start of the term; that is the standard that we have applied up until this exact point. So I really wonder what it is about this that has caused the Greens to change their position.
Drones are exciting; I think we all agree with this. Even the people putting forward this inquiry have said they support drones, they support this technology, but there are concerns in the community that need to be aired. So why is it that for a topic as exciting as this we are prepared to bend the standard? There are plenty of other exciting inquiry topics where we could be doing the exact same thing but we are not.
The other thing I want to talk about is the standard we set. If this is what will occur to EDT my warning to all members and committee chairs in this place is that the wishes of your committee members and your committee will not be respected by this place. On some levels, I understand that. When legislation is referred to a committee, I understand that is pressing and needs to be addressed and the individual wishes of the committee should not be considered. However, when it comes to referring an inquiry, is it too much to ask that we talk to the committee first?
I note that this has been brought forward by Mr Wall. I appreciate Mr Wall’s enthusiasm for drones but he is not a member of EDT. One of the constraints of this place is that we all have limited time and we cannot sit on every single committee. Mr Wall has a companion and a colleague who sits on that committee. He could have mentioned to his colleague Mr Hanson that he is interested in this topic and that he thinks that there is benefit to the community in this inquiry being instigated. But he has not done that. It is offensive to me as a member of EDT to come into this place to discover what I potentially will be inquiring into.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video