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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1955 ..

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Ordered that clauses 9 and 10 be reconsidered.

Clauses 9 and 10-reconsideration.

Ordered that the question be divided.

Clause 9.

MR BERRY (11.15): Mr Speaker, I sought to have the question divided on clauses 9 and 10 to draw attention to the reasons why they are being reconsidered. Mr Moore said that he was going to change his vote on this matter because he was upset with something that Mr Stanhope had done after he had supported a position. I find that extraordinary. If we are making policy on the basis of a personal difference with one of the people in this place, it is just extraordinary. Either Mr Moore supported what he voted for or he did not. I just do not understand how he can justify and rationalise a decision on the basis of how upset he is with a personality in this place.

Mr Moore may or may not have liked what the Labor Party did in respect of a certain matter, but he went the same way as we did in this matter for some time, doing so until we did something which so upset him that he decided to change his mind, not because he disagreed with the position he had adopted earlier. I think that is extraordinary. I am happy to consider the matter as I know which way it is going to go, but I wish to have that on the record.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (11.16): Actually, Mr Speaker, it did not quite happen in that way, but Mr Berry always likes to put his spin on things. In fact, I said to Mr Rugendyke at the time, "Mr Stanhope has put a persuasive argument. I think that it is persuasive enough to carry the day, but is it persuasive enough on the most important issue, the issue of saying that you can just do whatever the Commonwealth does. If it is okay for the Commonwealth, you can hand it in. Therefore, effectively, you respond always to the Commonwealth legislation." I said to Mr Rugendyke that, if Mr Stanhope is being consistent, the very minor matter of clause 9 ought to be supported, but he was not consistent. When the most important matter came to hand, I drew that to his attention at the time. It was exactly the same argument. I could remain consistent only if he could remain consistent with the argument he had put about the persuasiveness of that. He was not consistent. If he does do not consider the argument to be strong enough, why should we go with Mr Stanhope on that argument. The persuasiveness that he put was lost by his actions.


(Leader of the Opposition) (11.17): I do need to respond. This is just a stunt by Mr Moore and I think that everybody here realises that that is what it is and that that is what it is all about. In fact, Mr Moore's logic in relation to this whole issue of what we did or did not do in relation to clause 9 is quite absurd. The logic that

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