Page 2311 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I also point out that the Assembly has not yet debated the third report of the 2020 study, although we are due to do so. The final report on the study will be tabled on 26 August, and I certainly look forward to seeing at that time the results of what has been a great deal of work, a great deal of participation by the community, and an enormous burden on the reference group, who I think have performed superbly. I ask that members agree with this short extension.
MS SZUTY (8.45): I will not take too much of the Assembly's time. I would like to support the Chief Minister's motion for the extension of time for this study. As the original proposer of the motion which the Assembly accepted, I always felt that it was a very tough timetable for the reference group to meet, and I have no difficulty whatsoever in a delay of a week before the final report is presented.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
UNBECOMING LANGUAGE
MADAM SPEAKER: Members, during question time I took on notice a point as to whether a question by the Leader of the Opposition included unbecoming language, under standing order 117(g). I do not consider that the language of the question by the Leader of the Opposition was unbecoming. The Deputy Chief Minister has already discussed the content of the question, including the language which is the subject of the point of order, in his answer and in his personal explanation. In conclusion, while I have not ruled the language of the question by the Leader of the Opposition as unbecoming, I would nevertheless encourage members to have regard to the impact on the tone and image of the Assembly of the language members use in the chamber and the way they phrase their questions.
INTERPRETATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993
Debate resumed from 17 June 1993, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR HUMPHRIES (8.46): I indicate that the Opposition will be supporting the Interpretation (Amendment) Bill 1993. Unfortunately for this and some other Bills brought into the house late in the last sitting, it was not possible, for reasons of time, for the Minister to read his speech into Hansard. It appears, I gather, in the reprinted version of Hansard, but we missed the edifying spectacle of his speeches.
Mr Connolly: I can read them in reply.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, we can do without that. I would rather take the best bits and use them myself, if you do not mind. There is a presumption that an Act of this parliament, or indeed of any other parliament, in the Westminster system should be read as a whole; that is, it is designed by the legislature as an integrated plan which is supposed to stand or fall as a whole, as a complete body.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .