Page 502 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Members, can I please have quiet.
MR STEEL: It should be dealt with here in the Assembly. We can have a mature discussion outside this place in relation to the amendments and any issues that may arise in relation to the issues surrounding this bill. It will already be going through a scrutiny process, as it should, with the amendments.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (3.54), in reply: There you have it, Madam Assistant Speaker. We get to the truth of the matter, don’t we? This is a squabble about who could get there first, to be the most progressive. We saw that Mr Pettersson, in his rush to be the biggest leftie, the most progressive, tripped over his own legislation. He has made a complete dog’s breakfast of it. And now Mr Rattenbury, who is a bit narky, to be honest, that Mr Pettersson got there first, is saying, “Welcome to the party, Mr Pettersson.”
What he has done in his bloody—I apologise, that was unparliamentary; I am having too much fun. He has identified this and he has nobbled Mr Pettersson’s desire to get this rammed through so that he can claim that he was the first to get there. Mr Steel, thank you. All I can say is thank you for exposing the squabble that is going on, the squabble that has resulted in a very flawed piece of legislation.
Mr Pettersson said that the reason that we are moving this amendment is because we want to stall it. Madam Assistant Speaker, it is already stalled. Your side adjourned it before we even got to the in-principle debate. We could not even have a debate in principle. We could not even have a vote in principle; you lot had to adjourn it because you were not prepared today to have a vote in principle.
Your side stalled it, and the reason is that the government still has not got amendments together to fix up your mess. And they have already indicated, as Mr Rattenbury indicated, that they are not going to be done in May; they are probably not going to be done in June. We are not going to be looking at this bill until July, anyway.
The time line that has been proposed and agreed to with the Greens is that the referral to the standing committee on health will be concluded and reported back to this Assembly by 6 June. Based on the timings advised by the government, through Mr Rattenbury, there is no stalling, other than the fact that this government had to adjourn it because it is trying to come up with a bunch of amendments that are being put in to try to fix up Mr Pettersson’s mess.
I was probably a bit mean to Mr Rattenbury before. I am sure his motives are pure. It is nothing about a squabble with Mr Pettersson regarding who got to the party first. I am sure it is not anything to do with that, Mr Rattenbury. But I do welcome your backflip. It is nice to have you on board, so welcome to the party.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video