Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 4 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 950..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
There is much that it would be desirable to include in the legislation. However, as has been said before, and I will say it again, two weeks is not sufficient time to develop the substantial amendments we would like to have moved. We have been approached by a large number of people suggesting amendments to ensure that ACTEW is a socially and environmentally sound company. The amendments we have tabled manage to bring only a fraction of these suggestions to this Assembly for debate. The amendment, however, provides a clear statement of the objectives this Assembly wants ACTEW to follow. It is an improvement on what the Government has offered.
MR DE DOMENICO (Minister for Urban Services) (11.43): The Government is not 100 per cent happy with the way this amendment is worded; but, once again, after talking to the other members of the Assembly, we realise that it is something we are not going to die in a ditch over. The Government will be supporting this amendment.
MR WHITECROSS (11.43): Mr Speaker, we are supporting this amendment. Like Mr De Domenico, we could probably play around with the words and we would have liked that opportunity, as I am sure the Greens would have. That is the benefit of having a select committee. However, we have not got that, so we are happy to support - - -
Mr Moore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we have been relaxed with reference to standing order 52 today - reflection upon votes. There has been repeated reflection upon the vote of the Assembly with reference to the select committee. We have been particularly tolerant, but it is incorrect, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Moore, I will uphold your point of order. I have noticed that several members tonight have made reference to matters that have already been debated and voted on in this house.
Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, speaking to the point of order: There is an issue of people being a bit precious about decisions in the past. When they are held responsible for the decisions and mentioned with some derision, even though it might be only slight derision, we get some of the petals around the place leaping to their feet over the matter. The green book describes this sort of stuff as somewhat outdated. Arguing that you cannot criticise an earlier decision of the Assembly just because somebody gets a little bit upset by it, I think, is outrageous.
MR SPEAKER: I cannot uphold your point of order, Mr Berry, simply because standing order 52 is quite clear. It reads:
A Member may not reflect upon any vote of the Assembly, except upon a motion that such vote be rescinded.
If it is the view of the Assembly that that particular standing order needs to be amended, then we will have to take appropriate action; but I cannot ignore a standing order that exists. If it is drawn to my attention, as Mr Moore did, all I can do is to uphold it.