Page 4366 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 21 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not seen the move-on powers causing a great deal of problem in the same way these matters are, and yet, clearly, it does require expenditure of money via the use of police.
Mr Collaery: That was not the Government law advice - and we accepted it.
MR MOORE: I see; thank you. It seems to me that the issues that are going on now could just as easily be carried on in debate while we go ahead with the particular issues and then deal with them later. But we are getting to the stage where we are dealing in small technicalities of legal opinion, which I am not saying are unimportant; they are important. However, they should not take up hours and hours of the sittings of this Assembly.
Mr Kaine: Let us vote, in that case.
Mr Connolly: Yes, let us. Good idea. Did you hear what the Chief Minister said? Let us vote. Sit down.
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts) (11.12): Having had three speakers on that side, I think we are entitled to a similar number on this side. Mr Speaker, it seems that the Opposition is prepared to choose its judge. It likes to shop around for an appropriate forum. When it finds the forum or the opinion that it likes, it says, "This is the definitive view. This is the single view that we like, and anything else is wrong".
I note a different tactic in respect of the Hudson inquiry. Apparently that particular verdict did not suit the Opposition, so it said, "No, we do not want it". I am afraid you do not have that luxury. There is a genuine question of doubt about the matter, given that the Assembly has now received different advice from two different sources. It is incumbent on us to ascertain properly what the answers to these difficult questions are, and that means that we have to seek that further advice. I remind the Assembly that Mr Brazil himself says that it would be appropriate to obtain queen's counsel's advice - and the Opposition cannot pick and choose between particular parts of the advice he gives.
I should remind the Assembly, in case anyone has forgotten, that the Follett Government was more than prepared to use section 65 to knock out legislation it did not want. Ms Follett and the members of her Government found it convenient to use it when they were in government, but find now in opposition that section 65 is a bit of problem. They would like to get around that. The fact of life is, of course, that the moment Ms Follett and her party - heaven help us - returned to office, they would undoubtedly again be looking to the protection of something like section 65 and standing orders 200 and 201. You cannot pick and choose. The fact is that you have to accept that there is a real question of doubt, and we should get on with the business of finding out how we resolve that doubt.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .