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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2508 ..

Mr Humphries: I did not say that you had misled.

MR WHITECROSS: You did not use the word "misled", Mr Humphries, but you did imply that by saying that I had not accurately reflected events. The facts are that your account was identical in all material respects to mine - namely, after a meeting on the Financial Management Act, we had a huddle; we agreed that we were not going to proceed with the four-year term; we agreed that we were going to proceed with the October election; I said that I would have to take that back to my party room; we had a discussion about the Financial Management Act; and we had a discussion about fall-back dates. That was my description and that was your description, Mr Humphries, so do not come in here and say that I misrepresented the facts. I did not misrepresent the facts.

The only other thing I want to say is that Mr Moore, in his remarks, suggested that there was some problem with the capacity of the Labor Party to scrutinise Bills. I have scrutinised this Bill thoroughly, Mr Moore. I am perfectly familiar with this Bill. I know all about it and we have had several discussions about it. The fact is that I am not the spokesperson on electoral matters anymore. Labor's current spokesperson on electoral matters is entitled to reasonable time to familiarise himself with the matter. This is not an everyday event. It is only once in a while that there is a change of portfolios, but where there is a change of portfolio the new portfolio spokesperson is entitled to a bit of time to familiarise themselves with their portfolio. I believe that Mr Berry is entitled to that time. That is what I said before. That is why I voted for the adjournment. Mr Moore, let there be no question about the capacity of the Labor Party to scrutinise legislation. I am perfectly familiar with the legislation, but it is not for me to represent the Labor Party on this matter. It is for Mr Berry, and that is what Mr Berry has sought to do.

MS HORODNY (12.17): We are supporting the amendment as put forward by Mr Humphries. Other speakers have already articulated the very sensible reasons for moving the election date to October. Obviously, on the issue of four-year terms it is important that we have more public debate, because I believe it is a very important issue and it is important that the Canberra community have time to dwell on that issue and to debate the pros and cons.

Mr Berry is using very emotive language here today as per usual, saying that we are ramming this through. Since this Bill was presented in November, you have had eight or more months to look at it. Mr Whitecross has said that he has looked at this Bill and scrutinised it. I would have thought that the sensible thing to do, if Mr Whitecross has spent the time in scrutinising this Bill, is to share that information with the rest of his party, as indeed we do in our party. We have had no difficulties in looking at this Bill, and we consider that eight months has been a considerable period of time. It is important for us to get Bills through after there has been a reasonable period of time to look at them. We are supporting this amendment.

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