Mr BAYLEY – Honourable Speaker, I rise to rise to talk of the urgency on this and indicate that we will support. This is urgent. There is nothing more urgent than debating a no‑confidence motion. A no-confidence motion is the most serious thing that can be brought to this place, and it carries significant consequences for the minister, and we take that very seriously. We certainly support going to a fuller debate on this and listening very carefully. We have some information, the information that has been presented to date. We still do not have access to Ray Mostogl’s own words in the radio interview this morning. We will keep seeking that information and we will listen carefully to the debate.
We are no fans of this minister in the energy space. We are really concerned about the direction he is taking us in and the policy direction that the government is taking us in. In the Parks portfolio, we have significant concerns about this minister signing away public land to a developer that has lost all credibility, that has had to change the proponent of his proposal from a liquidated entity to his own person. Yet, this minister is quite content to sign over a World‑Heritage-listed island, in an exclusive lease, to a single person who has the capacity to then refuse entry to people. We have significant concerns about this minister and his honesty.
In terms of the substantive notion of this motion, we are still going to need more information. We will still listen really carefully to the debate. We will take this incredibly seriously. It is a very serious matter. It is urgent. We do feel as if this House has the time to consider this issue. To listen to the Deputy Premier, then the Treasurer come up and talk about the important businesses of the House – well, the business of the House is so important they had to inject, at the last minute, a nonsense motion about forestry just to keep us busy talking for- I do not know how long we will talk for on that, it is an unlimited debate. They could talk it out all day.
They still have not brought on the Tasmanian Community Fund bill. Why is that? Is that because you know you are going to lose that vote? These are the things we should be doing, but they are not even prepared to list them on the blue. The business of the House was communicated to us in an absolutely shambolic way. We did not get any information last night. I sought additional information from the Leader of the House quite late last night saying, ‘Where is it? What are we going to be doing?’ We got it 7 o’clock this morning, and then that was updated a subsequent time. The notion that the House is simply too busy
The notion that the House is simply too busy to be able to debate this kind of thing – we do not accept. We respect the opposition’s right to bring no-confidence motions to this House. We have done it this year in relation to the Premier and the pokies precommitment card, so we take it very seriously. We absolutely are engaged in this issue and look forward to the debate and will participate, but I say again in relation to the motion, we will be listening really carefully. We will be seeking more information. Some staff and others are trying to get that information and talk to other people. We will be considering the specifics of the motion really carefully and weighing up the implications of it.
We are cognisant about what this means for the minister, both professionally and personally, and also the reputation of this House and how we manage these kind of issues. We take it seriously. We are going to be listening carefully, but we support the urgent nature of this, and the allocation of a significant amount of time, so that we can flesh out these issues properly. We can get the information we need to make an informed, rational and logical decision that is in line with the principles of the parliament and what is expected of a minister of the Crown. In saying that, I will take my seat and say we will support urgency and we look forward to the debate if it gets over the line.
