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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 20 June 1995) . . Page.. 822 ..


Mr Speaker, we can ask the Federal Government to take this step on behalf of the people of the ACT. We are the representatives of the people of the ACT. We are entitled to put a point of view on behalf of those people of the ACT, and we ask the Federal Government to do that as well. It is not a separate matter, as Ms Follett suggested. It does not stand by itself. It is an amendment to this motion. It does not take out any words in this motion at all; it adds those words to this motion. Therefore, it should be supported by anybody who takes the first paragraph of this motion seriously.

MR SPEAKER: The question is: That Mr Humphries’s amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR SPEAKER: The question now is: That Ms Follett's motion, as amended, be agreed to.

MR MOORE (12.42): Mr Speaker, standing order 133 of the Assembly reads:

The Assembly may order a complicated question to be divided and may order reports of committees and other matters be considered by parts.

I seek to divide the motion, with the first paragraph, the in-principle matter - that the Assembly deplores the actions of the French Government in moving to conduct more nuclear tests in the South Pacific - being considered first, and the action following that being considered separately. I therefore move:

That the question be divided by taking the first paragraph separately and then considering the remainder of the motion.

MR BERRY (12.42): I find this unbelievable. Mr Moore is becoming an apologist for the weak position of the Government in relation to this matter and is seeking to get them off the hook.

Mrs Carnell: He is trying to get some agreement from this house.

MR BERRY: Mrs Carnell interjects that he is just trying to get some agreement on it. You have your opportunity to agree on the action. The action is what is important. We said, when discussing Mr Humphries’s amendment, that if the Government were prepared to support our motion we would be quite happy to support the amendment, and we did. It seems that we come to the issue of whether this is a complicated matter or not. It is not a complex matter at all; it is quite straightforward. There is a motion and an amendment, but the standing orders permit the matter to be divided up. I think this ought to be regarded as a bit of a stunt to protect a particular weakness in the Government. I saw Mr Moore the other day taking the strongest action possible, hurling himself at the police.

Ms Follett: Did they agree with him?


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