Page 3222 - Week 11 - Thursday, 13 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: They clearly are not adopting the same position because when in government they relied on the protection of section 65 and now they say that we in government are not entitled to rely on that protection. I cannot understand the difference and I am yet to hear from the Opposition a satisfactory explanation as to why there is a difference.
Now Mr Berry interjects across the chamber in his usual fashion and says something to the effect that we ought to have allowed the adjournment to proceed for legal advice to be obtained. I think the question here arises: in what circumstances ought proper rulings - and I have every reason to believe it was a proper ruling by the Speaker - to be enforced and acted upon by the Assembly?
It is perfectly obvious that advice was obtained - at least it appears obvious to me anyway - by the Speaker before he made the ruling that he did. I have every reason to believe it was proper and appropriate advice. It does, after all, let us face it, accord with the advice that Ms Follett herself had in government when she relied on section 65. Therefore, we are entitled to assume, I believe, that the advice was properly obtained and that the ruling made by the Speaker was a correct ruling. In these circumstances we ought to rely on that ruling, abide by that ruling and follow the procedures outlined in standing orders for the enforcement of that ruling.
The suggestion that it should be referred to legal counsel for a costly legal opinion arises, it seems to me, purely from a political desire by the Opposition to frustrate that ruling and to give more life to a proposal which is already, quite clearly, utterly and completely dead. I see no argument here. I think that those opposite are attempting to get political capital out of a proposal for a Human Rights Bill, one they know perfectly well is being accommodated by this Government. The primary and only consideration for those opposite is to get the most political capital they can out of the proposal before it is finally knocked off for perfectly legitimate legal reasons. As I have said, I would have far more respect for the position of those opposite if it had been consistent. It has not been consistent.
In the circumstances I propose to follow, not just the precedent laid down by Mr Prowse, the Speaker, in his ruling today, but also the precedent set by Ms Follett herself in opposition when she relied on section 65 to knock out legislation put forward by Mr Stevenson.
MR STEVENSON (12.15): Mr Humphries talked about the Labor Party using the protection of section 65 and said: why should not the Alliance have the same protection? I wonder what it requires to be protected from. I do not think members of the Alliance, or other members of this Assembly, should require protection from full and open debate. There is nothing in this Assembly or any other parliament that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .