Mr WOOD - 2012-05-01
Over the last week or so, it has been announced there may be two agricultural companies vying for the whole of Ord River Stage 2; one wanting to grow sugar and the other cotton. This would mean one company will miss out unless there is more land available. Is there anything in this budget which would expedite Stage 3 - which is in the Northern Territory - of the Ord River development so there would be enough land available for the company which does not get Stage 2?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, my understanding is the Western Australian government called for expressions of interest from companies, national and international, and four companies are bidding. One company is bidding for the developed area in Western Australia. However, even in Western Australia, the Ord area to be developed first is an infill area from Stage 1, and potentially Stage 2, because there are many issues with Stage 2, such as what kind of industry will develop there, which will dictate the infrastructure to be put in place.
Despite what you might have read in the newspaper, there was no discussion with my department, or the government, from any of the proponents in Western Australia …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek clarification. The shadow Treasurer, on your decision, has been asked to leave the Chamber. In looking at the point of order raised by the member for Fong Lim it, effectively, is the same as that raised by the shadow Treasurer which was deemed to be frivolous.
Notwithstanding the judgment was it is long-standing practice that questions related to the budget may continue, I ask for clarification. The shadow Treasurer raised a point of order which was deemed to be frivolous, but another colleague raised the same point of order, prefixing it by a number, and was allowed to have that point of order judged and allowed to remain in the Chamber?
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is correct. In contrast to the member for Port Darwin, the member for Fong Lim stated the standing order number, and also waited a little longer for someone to get into the question before he raised a point of order.
Madam Speaker, it was a frivolous point of order.
Members interjecting.
Mr Tollner: That is a good tactic, guys, I love it. Kick out the shadow Treasurer on budget day. That is a new one ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Having discussed it with the Clerk, I believe the ruling I made in relation to the member for Port Darwin was correct. His attitude towards the Chair, his general behaviour - he knew perfectly well questions are asked every budget in relation to the budget. This has happened for the 11 years I have been in this Chamber, in fact, since self-government. It was a frivolous point of order.
Leader of the Opposition, you had been asking questions about the budget, so he is undermining you as Leader of the Opposition.
My position is it was a frivolous point of order and also showed defiance to the Chair. In addition, when you are asked by the Chair to leave the Chamber you are not allowed to yell as you leave. I was within my rights to ask him to leave because he was not attempting to leave. Leader of the Opposition, it is a frivolous point of order.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, my understanding is the Western Australian government called for expressions of interest from companies, national and international, and four companies are bidding. One company is bidding for the developed area in Western Australia. However, even in Western Australia, the Ord area to be developed first is an infill area from Stage 1, and potentially Stage 2, because there are many issues with Stage 2, such as what kind of industry will develop there, which will dictate the infrastructure to be put in place.
Despite what you might have read in the newspaper, there was no discussion with my department, or the government, from any of the proponents in Western Australia …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek clarification. The shadow Treasurer, on your decision, has been asked to leave the Chamber. In looking at the point of order raised by the member for Fong Lim it, effectively, is the same as that raised by the shadow Treasurer which was deemed to be frivolous.
Notwithstanding the judgment was it is long-standing practice that questions related to the budget may continue, I ask for clarification. The shadow Treasurer raised a point of order which was deemed to be frivolous, but another colleague raised the same point of order, prefixing it by a number, and was allowed to have that point of order judged and allowed to remain in the Chamber?
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is correct. In contrast to the member for Port Darwin, the member for Fong Lim stated the standing order number, and also waited a little longer for someone to get into the question before he raised a point of order.
Madam Speaker, it was a frivolous point of order.
Members interjecting.
Mr Tollner: That is a good tactic, guys, I love it. Kick out the shadow Treasurer on budget day. That is a new one ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Having discussed it with the Clerk, I believe the ruling I made in relation to the member for Port Darwin was correct. His attitude towards the Chair, his general behaviour - he knew perfectly well questions are asked every budget in relation to the budget. This has happened for the 11 years I have been in this Chamber, in fact, since self-government. It was a frivolous point of order.
Leader of the Opposition, you had been asking questions about the budget, so he is undermining you as Leader of the Opposition.
My position is it was a frivolous point of order and also showed defiance to the Chair. In addition, when you are asked by the Chair to leave the Chamber you are not allowed to yell as you leave. I was within my rights to ask him to leave because he was not attempting to leave. Leader of the Opposition, it is a frivolous point of order.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016