Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 4 May 1995) . . Page.. 262 ..


MR HUMPHRIES: Speaking to Ms Horodny's motion: It is interesting that, after a fairly serious defeat last February at the hands of the electorate, Mr Berry has come back into this place and maintains the very firm view about the Liberal Party that we are still the servants of Satan; we still move around in little pools of slime.

Ms Follett: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is that Mr Humphries continues to defy your ruling that he remain relevant to Ms Horodny's amendment. You insisted that other speakers remain relevant to the amendment. I ask that you insist that Mr Humphries also remain relevant.

Mr Moore: On that point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that, in responding to Ms Horodny's amendment, it is appropriate that the Minister respond to some of the issues that Mr Berry raised. Let us not forget that he was the one that was saying that Mr Humphries can be honest now and quoting, quite correctly, about Mr Humphries being honest now that he is in government and not in opposition.

Mr Berry: No; dishonest. He was honest when he was in opposition.

Mr Moore: I understand what you mean. I think that it is reasonable that Mr Humphries have at least the same latitude to be able to explore this issue as Mr Berry had.

MR SPEAKER: I would ask all members to be aware that we are discussing Ms Horodny's amendment. There is some leeway in terms of the debate; but, as I have pointed out to other members earlier, they must basically stay with the amendment itself. They must not canvass earlier parts of this debate or, for that matter, other aspects of matters before or not before the Assembly. I invite all members to take note of what I have said. Mr Humphries, please proceed.

MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It appears that members opposite are not interested in the praise that I want to heap on Mr Berry; so, I shall never do so again. I will desist from that course of action.

The logic of those opposite is that Mrs Carnell promised consultation; she did not consult before this decision was taken; therefore, she cannot be trusted on the undertaking that she has given to the Assembly. That is logical, but one of the premises is false. Mrs Carnell never said that there would be consultation on every single action taken by the Government. It is clearly impossible to consult on everything. I remind the Assembly that Ms Follett described her Government as a consultative government; but it did not consult the community about a great many things - VITAB, for example. There are plenty of examples where, unfortunately, by force of circumstance, those things cannot occur. It is quite one thing to say that the consultation did not occur before this action had to be taken. I would suggest that Ms Follett has been out of government for too long already, because she forgets what the Commonwealth can be like.

Ms Follett: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish you to be embarrassed by the continual defiance by Mr Humphries of your ruling on relevance. Would you like me to move that he be given leave to speak more broadly?


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .