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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2967 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I might also make a point to you by way of a point of order while I am on my feet. Members have already made several points in the course of their remarks tonight about how we should not be proceeding with these amendments. I should think further reflections of that kind are, effectively, reflections on the earlier two votes of the Assembly on this question. I would ask members, as we have decided now twice to proceed with this debate, to comment on the issues, not on particular reflections they might care to make on earlier votes in the Assembly.

MR QUINLAN (11.03): Just to close off on this matter, Mr Speaker, from where I sit I know what - - -

Mr Moore: No, you actually do not close off in the detail stage. You are having a second run.

MR QUINLAN: I want to speak again, then. What I have said and what I will repeat is that I just believe that this particular object is badly written. It is symptomatic of the dog's breakfast that this legislation has fast become because of the disjointed processes of putting it together with the simple object of getting it out of the way. I commend my amendment.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (11.03): In speaking to Mr Quinlan's amendment, Mr Speaker, I remind members that, in fact, these pieces of legislation were run past the Family Planning Association and others as part of the process that I used to get them - - -

Ms Carnell: The College of General Practitioners.

MR MOORE: Absolutely.

Mr Quinlan: How much time did they have?

MR MOORE: And they had quite a lot of time, particularly to look at these ones.

Mr Stanhope: But not those that are voting on it.

MR MOORE: I will make the point, Mr Stanhope, because I was in a lose-lose situation, that on the one hand you did not want me to flag what I was doing and on the other you wanted me to give everybody the amendments a long time ahead. That was the bind I was in, Mr Stanhope, and I tried to find a better way of doing it. Indeed, Mr Stanhope, I flagged them in the car park with Ms Tucker. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that what we are talking about with this object is the second part of the Bill that I said I would seek to limit. There was the information and there was the cooling-off period. This is about the cooling-off period so that a woman has the time to make a carefully considered decision. I think that also answers the question that Ms Tucker raised.

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