Page 915 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We are saying that we want to save clause 5 of the Bill, and that is what the draftsman is saying. We cannot have ridiculous prosecutions by the Crown against itself, but we are holding out to those who administer this law that they should abide by this law. I think Mrs Grassby has given strength to this argument by acknowledging that much of the clinical waste in this Territory will be disposed of essentially under public service direction.
I think it is fair to keep this enjoinder because at its highest it is only an enjoinder. It does not affect civil liberties. A crowd opposite me thinks it knows something about it, but this provision has been brought in by Labor governments elsewhere in Australia, and it has no ideological basis; I cannot find an ideological point to this. I note that neither Ms Follett nor Mr Whalan is in the house to hear this discussion.
Ms Maher: Again?
MR COLLAERY: Again.
MR MOORE (8.37): I have listened to the arguments put forward by Mrs Grassby and the gobbledegook put forward by Deputy Chief Minister and Attorney-General Bernard Collaery. By and large, his arguments have not convinced me. Even if his referring to Hogg had helped, I am in the unfortunate position that when he referred to another document the other day and then tabled it I found, on reading it at that time, that it was not anything to which he had referred. Because of that, I doubt anything that he presents. How can I trust that he is presenting Hogg or - - -
Mr Jensen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker - - -
Mr Duby: What is the number?
Mr Jensen: No. 55, personal reflection, Mr Speaker. Mr Moore is reflecting on the character of Mr Collaery.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you for your observation, Mr Jensen. I ask you to withdraw that, Mr Moore. I believe an imputation was involved.
MR MOORE: Certainly not, Mr Speaker. I was just explaining why it was - - -
MR SPEAKER: Order! I ask you to withdraw the statement.
MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, if I may clarify the situation, I referred to a particular document which he tabled and which was not what he said it was. He now refers to another document, but how can I trust that document?
MR SPEAKER: Order! An imputation is involved. Please withdraw it. The imputation is that the member cannot be trusted to produce documents of worth in the Assembly. An imputation is involved.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .