Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2232 ..
Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, I add that that would be the shallowest and shabbiest interpretation that you could come across in this place of what I said. The fact of the matter is that Mr Humphries is relying on debate and votes which occurred in this place in the past to promote his Bill. If Mr Humphries is so confident as to the merits of his Bill, then he should speak to the merits of his Bill and not reflect on the positions of other people in this place when this Bill was last voted upon. That is the clear distinction, Mr Speaker, and I urge you to advise Mr Humphries, and in fact rule, that he must not continue to reflect on the opinions of members and votes taken in this place.
MR SPEAKER: First of all, standing order 51 states that a member may not allude to any debate or proceedings of the same calendar year.
Mr Moore: We are not worried about 51. It is 52.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Berry is, it appears. Therefore, there is no point of order on what he is saying there.
Mr Berry: No, 52, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Just a moment. You referred to a vote in this place.
Mr Berry: Have a look at 52, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Standing order 52 states:
A Member may not reflect upon any vote of the Assembly, except upon a motion that such a vote be rescinded.
It is not my view that Mr Humphries is reflecting on a vote in this place. He is certainly quoting comments made by other members, but he is not reflecting on a vote. Mr Humphries is not saying the vote of the previous Assembly was wrong, ignorant, stupid or anything of that nature. He is simply using matters relating to the last debate, as is his right because it was 12 months ago, to support his presentation speech. Therefore, there is no point of order.
MR HUMPHRIES: Let me continue. (Extension of time granted) Ms Follett also pointed to overseas experience with community-initiated referenda - - -
Mr Moore: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order this time is under standing order 62, which talks about irrelevance or tedious repetition. The relevance is clear, but Mr Humphries himself has told us that he is basically using the same arguments and the same speeches as he used a year ago when he introduced the Bill. He indicated that as well. I draw your attention to the fact that that standing order says: