Page 3322 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
more intent on making those cheap political points of which I spoke a moment ago than they are on debating the real issues. I will give you a good example of that. In this Assembly today I tabled a review of the career structure of nurses in the ACT, a matter on which Ms Follett was extremely critical of the Government when the report was first tabled. Again, an idea was being floated but the Government was being attacked.
Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance.
MR SPEAKER: Please proceed, Mr Humphries.
MR HUMPHRIES: This is a tactic being used by the Opposition, Mr Speaker.
Mr Berry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I raised the issue of relevance. Mr Humphries was referring to a matter that was resolved.
MR SPEAKER: All right, thank you, Mr Berry. Please get to the point, Mr Humphries.
MR HUMPHRIES: This is very much to the point, Mr Speaker. This matter of public importance today is a part of a tactic by the Opposition to take cheap political points without having to debate the substance of what is going on. There was Opposition criticism when the review of which I spoke was tabled. Today in the Assembly, when the report itself was tabled, there was not one word of criticism. They were not prepared to back up the cheap shots they make elsewhere. That, in my view, Mr Speaker, is contemptible.
The current topic is a very bland one: "The failure of the Alliance Government to refer proposals to restructure the ACT Courts and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the ACT Community Law Reform Committee". That is almost satisfactory, as a matter to debate in this Assembly. But in fact the debate here has been much broader than that. It has not been about just our failure to refer a particular proposal. You would not have enough to keep an hour's worth of debate going on that. It has been about particular aspects of these proposals, particular features of the ideas the Government has responsibly placed on the public table for public comment. An idea apparently is too reprehensible to put up and float in the public arena. It is too much. It is mind blowing. It is too much to cope with.
We know, of course, that the people opposite are the true conservatives; the ones who do not want things to change, who are not prepared to accept new ideas and new ways of doing things. Mrs Grassby's comments were very amusing, and I greatly enjoyed her contribution to the debate. Her rather folkloric concept of the legal system was a little bit unexpected; but, still, it was a welcome contribution to the debate. I was particularly interested to note her advice to the Assembly and presumably to its members. I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .