ACT Greens leader Shane Rattenbury has told Opposition housing spokesman Mark Parton to "go and read the rules" of parliament, in a fiery debate after the opposition attempted to pass a bill that would have used government appropriations.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Mr Parton introduced last month a bill that could have given landlords an exemption from land tax if they rented their properties at a 25 per cent discount on market rent, through a community housing provider.
Despite concerns the bill did not technically ensure the rent cut would be delivered, and that it could not be passed anyway, given it involved potential appropriations of government funds, Mr Parton stood by the bill at the time.
On Tuesday however, Speaker Joy Burch told MLAs she had received official advice from the Assembly Clerk's office confirming the bill was out of order, unless the Assembly voted to suspend Standing Orders to allow debate on the bill.
Among the issues raised was that the advice referred to House standing order 179, which states that "only a minister may initiate a proposal to impose, increase, or decrease a tax or duty, or change the scope of any charge".
While federal parliament has the specific standing order, the territory Assembly does not, and in the absence of such an order, the Assembly adopts the approach the House of Representatives takes.
After Opposition MLA Andrew Wall moved to suspend standing orders, debate swiftly degenerated, with Mr Parton saying despite the Assembly agreeing to the proposal in the bill, through passing Greens' MLA Caroline Le Couteur motion on the issue last sittings, "now for the most technical of reasons, we can't even debate it in here".
Mr Parton told the Assembly that if the Greens did not support Mr Wall's motion, the minor party was effectively stopping members from representing the people they were there to.
He said it was bizarre that Ms Le Couteur was pleading for us all to pass her motion, he believed the Greens would vote it down, preventing debate on the bill.
"Here is your change to prove me wrong, here's your chance to show you are a genuine crossbench, this is your chance," he said.
Mr Rattenbury hit back at Mr Parton's claims, saying it was clear the power to appropriate funds rested with the executive branch of government, not the legislature, and that if the Opposition wanted to change the standing orders, it had a chance to do so with a current committee inquiry underway on the orders.
But he said the Opposition had not bothered to send a submission to that inquiry.
"We've been shown the true motivations of the Liberal party on this issue, both in Mr Parton's speech in which he directed quite some energy and potentially vitriol towards Ms Le Couteur, then the interjections and cat-calling.
"And as I stood up before I even opened my mouth, we heard the cat-calling coming from the Opposition, it was all about the politics of this matter and not the substance.
"Well Mr Parton, go and read the rules, we are stuck, we don't like it, but this is the rules of the place."
After the debate, Ms Le Couteur urged Housing Minister Yvette Berry to introduce a bill consistent with her earlier motion as soon as possible, while Mr Parton had lodged a motion calling for a government bill consistent with his failed bill.
Asked whether the government intended to introduce any such similar bill before the end of the year, a spokeswoman for Treasurer Andrew Barr, said yes, but the government was considering a "more targeted and effective proposal, as part of a broader range of initiatives, arising from the soon to be released housing strategy".
Ms Berry is due to report back to the Assembly in the next fortnight on action on Ms Le Couteur's motion, while expectations are rising she will release the long-awaited new strategy shortly, though she has repeatedly declined to put a date to it.
