Page 5109 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 12 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is unfortunate that in this house, and I think in parliaments throughout Australia, there are some people who, for what they perceive as political gain, are prepared to maintain things, firstly, that are not true and, secondly, that they in all responsibility and logical thought should know are untrue. If indeed I considered that self-government was legal, there would be no doubt whatsoever that I would push for an upper house. I believe that there should be safeguards from people who do not particularly care what the will of the people is and what their rights and responsibilities are as members of parliament. Indeed, in those cases the idea or the ideal of an upper house is an excellent idea.
Mr Connolly: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: we do seem to be straying into a speech here, rather than a - - -
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: We seem to be getting close to that, Mr Connolly.
MR STEVENSON: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, would you just keep it to standing order 46, as you started to do, Mr Stevenson.
MR STEVENSON: Yes. I thought it worthwhile to make the point that the statement that I had said that was simply not true. I do not support an upper house for the ACT. I consider that the ACT Assembly should be abolished, and I have done so for a long time. I would find that my view would not necessarily change. I think it not likely that Mr Connolly and Mr Berry, unfortunately, are likely to tell the truth about the matter in the future.
Ms Follett: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Stevenson - - -
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson, would you come back. The point of order relates to you.
Ms Follett: Mr Stevenson has made the point that he believes it to be unlikely that Mr Connolly and Mr Berry would tell the truth at a future stage. I think that is unparliamentary and ought to be withdrawn.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes; perhaps you would withdraw that, Mr Stevenson, and rephrase it. I think that is pretty close to an imputation of lying.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, the point that I made was to do with an imputation that I was implying that there should be an upper house in this Assembly. That was not the case - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .