Page 1118 - Week 04 - Thursday, 29 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Throughout many debates in this house I have heard the calls of many people saying that private members' business is of great value to the running of this Assembly. Of course, it would be a terrible shame if private members could not continue in that week. So, as I have said, I support the motion of Mr Stevenson in that regard. However, this proposal of Mr Berry's, that there be no adjournment for dinner, or there be a very limited adjournment for dinner - - -
Mr Berry: None.
MR DUBY: None, no adjournment - that settles that - there will be no adjournment for a dinner break and we could theoretically go through from 2.00 pm until 10.30 pm. I am afraid I cannot support that. The reason for that is as Mr Stevenson said, there well may be political motives in this. I also understand the political motives of Mr Stevenson in opposing this amendment, for, of course, if there was not a dinner break on that particular day Mr Stevenson could not address his rally, which I am sure he is planning to organise before he introduces his private members' business on that Tuesday night. I am sure we can all guess what that private members' business will be. It most certainly will be his private members' Bill to abolish X-rated movies.
Mr Stevenson, I think, may be protesting too much that there are political motives in Mr Berry's amendment and he had the pure ideals of opposing it because, of course, it would break his heart if he could not address his rally throughout the tea break. Nevertheless, I think he is entitled to it. I mean, let us face it, it is the one and only issue that Mr Stevenson ever runs with. I think we will be big-hearted on this side of the house and give him his opportunity to get his face in front of the TV cameras. Therefore I do not support not having a break on that Tuesday evening.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want to speak to close your substantive amendment?
MR BERRY (4.07): I have already spoken on the amendment and I seek leave to speak on the motion. I will be very brief.
Leave granted.
MR BERRY: The motion is, as has been well argued by Mr Duby, a matter which Mr Stevenson wishes to pursue. Nobody would like to lose private members' business for any reason, but in relation to the motion itself I can see why the Government would support it and would oppose the amendment because the motion gets them off the hook again. I can see the reason that they would do that.
It is a matter of politics that one talks about motions and amendments and it is particularly important in this case
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .