Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 1 Hansard (28 April) . . Page.. 99 ..
Mr Moore: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is true that I said they were bad once and they are good now, and I do not resile from that. Mr Berry would not understand that an intelligent person provided with a little bit more information might have a different opinion.
MR BERRY: A double backflip with pike.
Mr Osborne: He can change his mind.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Moore is taking a point of order.
Mr Moore: The substantive issue has already been well debated. It is quite clear that Mr Berry is working on the substantive issue. It is quite clear that there is a distinction between dividing the issue and the substantive issue. The fact that he does not comprehend that reflects his own abilities.
MR SPEAKER: The question is that Mr Berry's amendment be divided, unlike Gaul, into two parts; so go on, Ms Tucker.
MS TUCKER (4.49), in reply: Just to clarify the situation for members, I will wrap up the debate on the motion that the question be divided. I am asking that amendments (1), (2) and (5) be voted on together. Amendments (3) and (4) are separate from that. Amendment (5) is a different issue. I have not actually heard it argued. Mr Osborne did not put an argument. Mr Berry, did you put an argument for amendment (5) and for wanting five members on the committee?
Mr Berry: Say that again. I am sorry; I was distracted for a moment.
MS TUCKER: That is all right. I have talked to Mr Stanhope and I am quite happy to see that committee have a broader membership because I obviously believe it is very important, even though I still have no idea what the committee is going to influence.
Motion (Ms Tucker's) agreed to.
That Mr Berry's amendments (1), (2) and (5) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 7 NOES, 10 Mr Berry Ms Carnell Mr Rugendyke Mr Corbell Mr Cornwell Mr Smyth Mr Hargreaves Mr Hird Mr Stefaniak Mr Quinlan Mr Humphries Mr Stanhope Mr Kaine Ms Tucker Mr Moore Mr Wood Mr OsborneQuestion so resolved in the negative.