Page 2574 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 8 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: Nobody tells me - unlike the Labor caucus that tells you.
MR BERRY: Of course it would take a little while to sink in with you, but the fact is that the people of Canberra are rising against the closure of the Royal Canberra Hospital. What we are trying to do is ensure that this Government does not rip the guts out of our health system, provides a top quality health system for the people of the Territory and continues to do so. We will continue to ensure that the Government is kept honest. It is wrong, its figures are wrong. Gary Humphries knows the figures are wrong. He knows they are wrong because he has been looking for extra money lately and he has not got it. He asked for extra money and got knocked back. His figures are wrong and we know it. Royal Canberra Hospital should stay open and that is why we need support for this motion.
MR COLLAERY (Deputy Chief Minister) (12.03): I am totally lost as to what I should respond to. Mr Berry's speech was a real salad, Mr Acting Speaker, and I am not sure where to start. I think somewhere there there was a bit of an olive for Mr Berry. Certainly, the proposal that we create a dissent from the Chair procedure requires careful thought. That is the only point I make.
I believe that lower houses in a number of Commonwealth parliaments do not allow dissent from the Chair. If Mr Berry were a sporting person - he is not very sporting as far as I know; he did not come running yesterday - he would understand that there is a strong rule that in any areas of contention you accept the referee's verdict. If a team can move dissent on the playing field at every juncture, the substance of an arbitrated process can fall away. That seems to be the essence of the arguments advanced in Canada and some other lower houses.
I believe the issues require examination by the Administration and Procedures Committee. Mr Berry's proposal may be perfectly proper in the view of that committee and I look forward to hearing its recommendations because I intend to ask my colleagues to oppose this motion only to the extent to which it will allow the matter to be referred to that committee.
MR CONNOLLY (12.05): Mr Acting Speaker, the Opposition believes it is perfectly in order for dissent to be moved from the Speaker's ruling and it is for that reason that we are now seeking suspension of standing orders to allow us to do that. Mr Jensen disputed vigorously that this was an appropriate procedure, saying that there is nothing in the standing orders to suspend from. That clearly cannot be so.
Our view was that standing order 73, which provides that the Speaker shall rule, being silent upon the issue of dissent, allows us then to go to standing order 275 which
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .