Page 1520 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 April 1991

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, I raise a standing order 46 matter. I claim to have been misrepresented. The Chief Minister misrepresented the position I put to this Assembly. I did call out "liar" in the heat of the moment. I withdrew that and I regret having said it. I was moved to that exclamation because of the mischievous nature of the Chief Minister's comments.

What I said in the course of the debate was as follows: It is true, as my colleague said, that it is more appropriate to pass legislation to deal with an issue than it is to ignore the law. That was not acknowledged by the Chief Minister, and I think the Chief Minister misrepresented me in his comments on the issue. What I said about Anzac Day was that it is a special day for Australians. That was not acknowledged by the Chief Minister, and in ignoring those facts he misrepresented me.

The issue of war is not a trivial matter; it never was. It has never been trivialised by the Labor Party; it has never been trivialised by me. For the Chief Minister to malign me in the way he did in his speech is very clearly misrepresenting my position. The legislation that is before the house today in relation to two-up is a trivial piece of legislation.

Mr Collaery: Mr Speaker, he is now debating the issue.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, I believe that that is so.

MR BERRY: The Chief Minister misrepresented me by suggesting that my complaint about the triviality of the legislation had something to do with the traditions of Anzac Day and wars of the past. It had nothing to do with that. This is a trivial piece of legislation. I also said that there was some hypocrisy amongst the members - - -

Mr Jensen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to standing order 47, which says in relation to a personal explanation:

... no debatable matter may be brought forward nor may any debate arise upon such explanation.

Frankly, Mr Berry has gone over the top in his personal explanation here.

MR SPEAKER: I do not uphold your objection, Mr Jensen. I believe that Mr Berry is explaining his position. I think he is entitled to do that.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .