Page 2379 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 30 July 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
They spend a lot of time debating many issues, and if this is the most important one for them it should be their number one motion on private members’ business day when they next have the opportunity to list it, and that is what they should do. That is what I encourage them to do if this is indeed the priority that Mr Wall seems to indicate in this suspension of standing orders speech that certainly strayed far from the topic of whether standing orders should be suspended.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (11.22): We would be happy to support the move to re-adjourn the discussion. I think the very point of having this committee inquiry was that it was evident in the previous discussion that members in this place were operating under different understandings of the convention, and that is exactly why we have the committee process. I think that that committee process has been valuable.
Certainly we as the Greens have long operated under what has turned out not to be perhaps the appropriate convention, and I think that this committee report has been very valuable in clearing that up. We are very happy to operate on the basis going forward of what the committee has found.
The committee made a clear finding that the very fact that a matter is before a committee does not preclude its being discussed in the Assembly but it precludes matters obviously that are being deliberated within the committee, the prospective findings of the committee et cetera; or the pre-empting of the committee being discussed in this place. And I think that is a useful and important distinction.
The report uses good examples from other parliaments to be very clear about what that is. And we find that very useful. As I say, we have certainly operated on a different understanding for many years now, in fact, and we are very happy to operate on the new basis.
On those grounds, and with the now clear understanding of this Assembly, we do not seek to prevent Mr Parton’s motion being debated. We are reluctant to debate it today, for two reasons. One is that we were given no indication from the Liberal Party that they wanted to debate it today. Until five minutes ago we were given no indication from the Liberal Party that they wanted to debate it today. To be fair, Ms Le Couteur, who would be the spokesperson, has not made any preparation. She has been focused on some other matters. But we are very happy to debate it on another occasion.
I take Mr Barr’s point as well about this being executive business day, and we are very happy for it to come on on another day. In light of what Mr Wall said, we will certainly be happy to suspend standing orders to re-adjourn it in a way that does not preclude Mr Parton bringing it on when he wishes to in the future.
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (11.24): I do not have much to say here, other than that I am most pleased that Mr Rattenbury has had a genuine change of heart in terms of the ruling from this committee on what can and cannot be discussed in this chamber, irrespective of whether it is being discussed in another room by members of this Assembly. I just wish we could have debated this in April when it was brought forward.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video