Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Dickson's contribution was almost an encouragement to vote against his disallowance motion, which leads me to think that the motive for this is to maintain this as an issue rather than solve it.

I have been more than happy to talk about compromises on this issue, and the minister would be aware of that. Meetings have been held as recently as this morning with various people about what this actually means, particularly to regional people, in terms of the changes that are contemplated. The member for Boothby, in his much more reasoned debate, raised some of those issues about the transitional arrangements, and those issues are still in discussion.

I think there is an issue there. If this particular arrangement is concluded there is an issue—not of the 19-month extent that is talked about—where the two schemes intersect. That is something that does need to be addressed. If the opposition truly have a compromise position that addresses that, I am more than happy to talk to them about that, because we have all expressed some degree of concern in relation to that particular point of intersection. But for the member for Dickson to come in here and make this—I do not know whether you think that that will gain leverage in the electorate of New England or whatever. I think the people of New England are a little bit smarter than that. Irrespective of that, I think it is disappointing that a shadow minister who has genuinely prosecuted a case in terms of the policy that they believe in has prosecuted it very poorly when it comes down to the absolute debate and what sorts of amendments or compromises may be obtained.

My staff were in touch with his office, I think as recently as yesterday afternoon, asking for more information about the disallowance.

See this speech in context