Page 3212 - Week 11 - Thursday, 13 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
scoring. It must be seen purely as a reaction because Mr Collaery, yet again, is miffed. It is pathetic.
Mr Speaker, there is yet another option available to members opposite, if they have a commitment to human rights, and that is, of course, for one of their Ministers to sponsor this Bill. We have not heard that option put up by any of them and I would ask you why that is. I would suggest to you that it is because this issue has raised in them such a degree of bitterness, such an irrational approach, that they are unable to see the commonsense solution. I know that they are embarrassed because we have done their job for them. I know also that they have put money in the budget for just this purpose. So, all of their arguments are totally hollow. There are several decent, rational, responsible courses of action available to them; they have not taken any of them. They stand condemned for this and they stand condemned for attempting to deny an improvement to the human rights of the people of the ACT.
MR CONNOLLY (11.34): Mr Speaker, I rise briefly in this debate not so much to answer the diatribe from the Attorney-General as to address the thoughtful remarks of the Chief Minister.
Mr Collaery: I have not spoken yet.
MR CONNOLLY: I refer to the words of the Attorney-General in his efforts to throw this Bill out yesterday, and also this morning when he moved this motion.
Mr Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition said, the Chief Minister's comments were thoughtful on this point. There is clearly a difficulty with the legislation and that is acknowledged by all sides of the house. The point is, however, that this side of the house does not accept the view of the law which was set down in the one letter that has been circulated on this point, that is, the opinion of Mr Sorbello. Even going to Mr Sorbello's letter, it is clear that it answers the point that the Chief Minister raised, and that was: why did the Federal Parliament intend to so limit the Legislative Assembly? Mr Sorbello makes the point that the explanatory memorandum, the short title to the section and the parliamentary debates show that there was no intention on the part of the Federal legislature to limit this parliament in the question of private members' Bills. Indeed, the implication that one draws from the explanatory memorandum, the title to the section and the parliamentary debates is that the same rule ought to apply here as applies in the Federal Parliament, that is, that Bills appropriating supply may not be moved by the Opposition. In other words, the Opposition may not move a budget, and quite properly that is in the Westminster tradition that applies in all parliaments throughout Australia.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .