Page 451 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries: Under standing order 47, Mr Speaker: Mr Berry was - - -
MR SPEAKER: Just a moment, Mr Humphries. Mr Berry, I cannot interpret how that which you just passed to us has anything to do with the explanation of misquoted or misunderstood words. Therefore I believe that you have misused the provision.
Mr Berry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been the correct practice of the Speaker to allow debate on these issues on points of order. It has been done in the past and people have been able to argue their case.
MR SPEAKER: No debatable matter may be expressed at this time and I believe that there is no debate required on this issue at this time.
Mr Berry: With respect, Mr Speaker, it says clearly that I may again be heard, and I have not been heard.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, you have.
Mr Berry: And for you to make the judgment that it was a misuse of the standing orders is, in my view - - -
Mr Kaine: Mr Speaker, he may only be heard again if he is making a point of having been misquoted or misunderstood. Neither of those applies.
MR SPEAKER: That is right. I overrule your point there, Mr Berry.
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts): Mr Speaker, I have been misrepresented or misunderstood by Mr Berry and I wish to make a statement under standing order 47. Mr Berry has asserted that I support the Hill amendment, on the basis that the Hill amendment constitutes preferential voting in the present electoral system of the ACT. Mr Berry was out of the room when I pointed out to the Assembly that in fact the Hill amendment is not the entirety of preferential voting for the ACT; it is only one small part of it. I put on the record that I oppose the Hill amendment; I would like to see it removed from the statute books; but I wish to retain any measure which allows preferential voting fairly for people in the ACT when casting votes at elections.
MR SPEAKER: The question is: That Mr Humphries' amendment to remove the last four words of paragraph (3) from his original motion be agreed to.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .