Page 916 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: It is not an imputation; it is a fact, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Order! You have just implied it again, Mr Moore. Please withdraw it. If it is something of substance, you may use the standing orders to move a pertinent motion against the member. If you do not wish to do it in the correct way, please withdraw it.
MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, if I move a pertinent motion against the member, it will just be transferred and overrun by the Government.
MR SPEAKER: That is another irrelevant point. Please withdraw the imputation.
MR MOORE: I withdraw anything that is an imputation.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you. The imputation is now withdrawn. Please proceed.
MR MOORE: I am certainly not convinced that a private person would not have a reason. For example, the Australian Environment Council or some body along those lines could find a public servant - probably none of our current public servants for whom I have the utmost regard, but a future irresponsible public servant - doing something inappropriate, and therefore the appropriate action would be to attempt a prosecution. I feel that they ought not be excluded from this and that it should be very clear in the Bill that it is available. Therefore, I support the amendment proposed by Mrs Grassby.
I will go further; I am also entirely unconvinced by Mr Collaery's argument that, because the legal section provided advice, he has to take that advice. It is advice; that is exactly what it is. If it were more than advice, if you want to take it as gospel, why come here at all? These are your decisions, and you take what your public servants offer you as advice. Sometimes it is very strong advice, but it still is advice.
MR BERRY (8.41): The only issue that I raise again is the one that the Attorney has failed to address again, even though he quite quickly responded to what had been said when I rose earlier to discuss the rights of private individuals and how they will be excluded from taking on the Crown as a result of the Government's action. Unless the Government agrees to this proposed amendment, they will be forever prohibited from taking action against the Crown. In all of the previous mutterings of this Attorney, we have heard his cry that he is a great supporter of civil liberties, but here he is making sure that the rights of individuals to pursue action against the Crown are prohibited.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .