Page 3184 - Week 15 - Thursday, 14 December 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Order! I would just like to hear the actual words you spoke prior to the objection.
MR WHALAN: I said "the duplicity of Mrs Nolan". It is not unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker. Just because Bernard stamps his feet on the table and has a tantrum does not mean that it automatically is.
MR SPEAKER: Order! My interpretation of "duplicity" is "lying" and therefore I would request that you withdraw it.
MR WHALAN: No, it means "double standards", Mr Speaker. On the one hand she says one thing and means another, and that is the duplicity of it. She did not tell a lie. There is no suggestion at all - - -
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Whalan. Under the explanation given, I accept that that is acceptable language.
MR WHALAN: But, you see, what it meant was that we could not get any undertaking. This is the process of consultation that they talk about. They would not tell us. We asked, asked, asked, whether there was going to be a question time and they refused to admit the fact that there would be no question time. They refused to admit the fact that they were cutting the ground from under democracy in this chamber.
The sort of question that I wanted to ask in question time was to ask the Chief Minister, for example, about a statement Mrs Nolan made on Sunday. Members of the ACT community will be aware that on Sunday Mrs Nolan announced that the Government had a policy to reduce the blood alcohol level for breath tests. There are some of us that are quite interested in this subject. Mrs Nolan announced that the Government would be reducing that level from 0.08 to 0.05.
Now, I wish to ask the Chief Minister what consultation process had taken place with the ACT community before that decision was made. I do not believe that there would have been sufficient time for them to speak to the Licensed Clubs Association, for example, or to the Australian Hotels Association, which would have views on this particular matter. I know there are other community groups which have legitimate views, and are entitled to have views, on this particular matter.
I would also like to know how to explain the differences between Trevor Kaine and Craig Duby and Major Jensen. We got Trevor Kaine on television last night saying, "There will be no increase in the Ministry". Then they wheeled in Craig Duby, and Craig Duby said, "Oh, yes, we could have an increase and what we would do is divvy the money up between us. It would not cost any more. We would sort of divide it up". Then, of course, Norman Jensen was interviewed and he said, "We would increase it to six".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .