Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 10 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 2669..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
well documented in both Hansard and the media. I do not care whether or not there is another spin that can be applied to give another meaning. I took your promise at face value, and I will do all I can to ensure that you live up to it. It is obvious that certain people were cared for in the triple R award. It was the people who were not that we were concerned about.
MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General): Mr Speaker, under standing order 46, I ask for leave to make a personal explanation.
MR SPEAKER: Proceed.
MR HUMPHRIES: Ms Tucker said that I had said that we were in favour of destroying the nature of health systems and that we were simply not doing as good a job of that as Labor was doing. That is a rather gross distortion of what I had to say. I was saying, in a sarcastic tone, that, if those people were accusing us of destroying health centres by removing salaried doctors from them and replacing them with private doctors, then certainly those opposite were destroying them at a much faster rate than we were. I certainly do not admit to having destroyed health centres. In fact, I would argue strongly that the measures proposed by Mrs Carnell are the only way of sustaining health centres in the future.
Debate (on motion by Mr Osborne) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 23 November 1995, on motion by Mr Humphries:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR CONNOLLY (4.03): The Statute Law Revision Bill is an annual exercise which essentially tidies up minor errors. In introducing the Bill, Mr Humphries made a very short speech saying that, and in response I will essentially give a very short speech saying that as well and foreshadowing that the Opposition will be supporting an amendment which I understand the Government will be bringing on.
I wrote to Mr Humphries recently saying that the Opposition shared his concerns about the so-called missing comma problem in relation to the code of practice for retail tenancies, suggesting to him that the Statute Law Revision Bill would be a suitable vehicle for the Government to bring forward an amendment. I understand that Mr Humphries, as Attorney, has directed that such an amendment be brought forward. We support the use of this Bill as such a vehicle. While that is slightly unusual and while it should not be assumed that the Opposition would support a general policy, or indeed, I would hope, that the Government would advocate such a policy, of using the Statute Law Revision Bill for quick fix-its, this is an instance where the clear policy intention of both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party last year was very firm. There has been a court ruling