Page 3221 - Week 11 - Thursday, 13 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR JENSEN: You are the fraud, Ms Follett. You are the one who knows full well that the Attorney-General had no option but to do it.
Ms Follett: Rubbish, what rubbish! I have given you two different options.
MR JENSEN: No, those options, as you clearly know, Ms Follett, were not tenable at all. The Attorney-General had no option, and that is what he has done. I am sure that when the Attorney speaks on this matter he will once again confirm the facts that I have just raised.
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts) (12.09): Mr Speaker, I rise to support my colleagues in this matter. I have not followed the whole of this debate; but I have not yet seen any reason put forward to distinguish the situation with respect to section 65 during the life of the Follett Government and the situation of section 65 now. It is apparent that this section imposes a severe limitation on oppositions, on minor parties, on non-governing parties to initiate legislation in the Assembly. As Mr Jensen has intimated, it is quite clear that the Federal Government intended that minority governments ought to be protected in some fashion against parties in the Assembly, other than that minority government, initiating legislation of a particular kind. I honestly cannot see any other explanation for section 65. Although those opposite pooh-poohed Mr Jensen's suggestion that that was the case, I would like to know what their alternative explanation is for the origin of section 65.
Mr Stefaniak: Terry reads it down.
MR HUMPHRIES: I heard something upstairs about Mr Connolly reading it down. He is very good at reading things down. I wish he would read down some of the ludicrous arguments that the Opposition comes forward with in this place. If section 65 means what it says - and I hold the curious view that, unread down, it does - then we have to draw the conclusion that it was not the intention of the Federal Parliament to permit parties other than government parties to initiate financial legislation. This is the only possible conclusion that can be drawn from that. That was the protection afforded by the Federal Parliament to minority governments. It was, moreover, protection upon which Ms Follett, as leader of the previous minority government, actually relied. I could feel more sympathy for the Opposition's present position if I felt that its members were maintaining the same single position over the life of this Assembly, but they clearly are not. They clearly are not adopting the same position.
Mr Berry: Why did you not agree to the adjournment so that we could get senior legal advice? Your opinion is not eminent enough.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .