Page 501 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In terms of whether this becomes a stalling tactic, I do know that this legislation is not fit to be debated. From all the intelligence I have and from discussions I have had with members of this place, it was not going to be debated in either May or June. If this committee reports by the end of the June sittings, we will still be able to proceed in July, as was, from my understanding, most people’s expectation of what was going to happen, anyway. So let us not worry about people giving us their free interpretations of what my motives are. I have put them on the table myself, and let us go to the committee process.
Mr Hanson is so ungracious that he could not just accept making a referral to a committee. He still had to take a pot shot, and that is his style. But that is not a good reason not to have a committee—particularly, as in this case, a tripartisan committee—sit down and have a look at these issues.
MR STEEL (Murrumbidgee—Minister for City Services, Minister for Community Services and Facilities, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Roads) (3.51): I am pretty disappointed with the position that it seems that this Assembly is about to take, in referring this bill to a committee. A lot of people, as Mr Pettersson suggested, who are watching today’s proceedings would be incredibly disappointed. Last year this Assembly made changes to the standing orders—
Members interjecting—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Members on both sides, please keep it down so that we can hear Mr Steel.
MR STEEL: Last year this Assembly made changes to the standing orders which would see amendments to legislation go through the scrutiny committee, as they should, for greater scrutiny. That process is already going to happen for the amendments. It is quite easy for members in this place to get together—we do not need to set up a select committee to do so—to discuss amendments that are proposed to legislation once they have gone through the scrutiny process.
I do not accept what Mr Rattenbury has had to say today about the necessity for this committee referral. The timing of the debate is not the matter that is of concern at the moment. We expect that this will take some time. But this is a stalling tactic that will enable the Canberra Liberals to continue their advocacy against this bill rather than allowing this place, this Assembly, with all 25 members here, including me, to have the debate. That is the correct place for a debate on this bill to take place, and we should continue to make sure that this is the primary place for the debate in relation to this very important law reform.
I do not support this proposal to send it to a committee today. I think people watching would be scratching their heads about the Greens’ position on this—just because you did not move this piece of legislation as a Greens party, and it was presented by a Labor member. So I think they will be scratching their heads.
Members interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video