Page 278 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of legislation, or a part of legislation, then we ought to remove it. We should try to manage to have the least amount of legislation possible.
MR BERRY (11.35): This Bill is a very interesting initiative of the Government because of the history that it has built up behind it. I would like to deal with that a little later. First of all, I want to talk about some of the things that Mr Humphries has said on the issue. It will not take me long because he did not seem to contribute much to the debate on the issue other than to clutch at the need for the retention of the word "royal" in the description of this legislation. It strikes me that, if Mr Humphries had his way, Mr Kaine would have a big black Rolls Royce parked down in the basement with a crown bolted onto the front.
Mr Kaine: I would not accept it.
MR BERRY: Indeed, you would not. You are to be congratulated for that. If Mr Humphries had his way, I am sure that you would have one.
Mr Humphries: I would rather have you bolted to the front of it.
MR BERRY: I hear Mr Humphries say that he would rather have me bolted to the front of it. I suppose that is a measure of my effectiveness
Mr Jensen: Use you as a bumper, Wayne.
MR BERRY: Well, I am tough enough. The need to maintain the strings to royalty is a tired old need. I do not know what Mr Humphries is looking for. I cannot imagine him being dubbed Sir Gary.
Mr Collaery: Give him time.
MR BERRY: I know that he is working on it. I have never heard of anybody being so dubbed for wrecking the education or health system for which he is responsible. He certainly might think that retaining the "royal" element of this legislation might earn him a tap on the shoulder with a sword. I doubt it.
This issue is really a lot of froth and bubble about pretty tired old legislation. The legislation is tired because it has not been used much. The Government has not talked about the need for the legislation, why it is being implemented or who has called for the upgrading of the legislation. It just seems that the Government is not interested in talking about a justification for improvements to the legislation. Maybe it wants two pieces of legislation because it can then say that it has introduced two pieces of legislation on inquiries in the ACT. Now that my colleague Mr Connolly has talked about the necessity for only one piece of legislation, I suppose
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .