Page 1824 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 1 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
support the legislation as well. But none of them could convince him that he ought to let this progressive legislation go through because somebody else would be able to take the credit. The dog in the manger attitude has shown through again. It is typical of the Residents Rally.
Question put:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 6 NOES, 9
Mr Berry Mr Collaery
Mr Connolly Mr Duby
Ms Follett Mr Humphries
Mrs Grassby Mr Jensen
Mr Moore Mr Kaine
Mr Wood Ms Maher
Mrs Nolan
Mr Prowse
Mr Stefaniak
Question so resolved in the negative.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General): Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and I seek leave to make a short statement.
MR SPEAKER: Please proceed.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Berry has made a number of allegations about me, principally that I have deliberately set out to block his Bill and that I have failed to advise him. The principal claim is that I have not advised him and have not responded to a letter from him setting out what was necessary to amend the Bill and make it acceptable.
Mr Speaker, on 17 April I enumerated the things that the Law Office had indicated to me were wrong with his Bill. Mr Berry's allegation that I have failed to assist him is quite wrong. The advice he sought was given to him on the floor of this house. I do not know, because of the confidentiality of the drafting process for private members, whether he took my comments to those people who were drafting the Bill for him. I do not know their identity. But clearly, Mr Speaker, his allegation that I have somehow failed to advise or assist him is entirely wrong and misplaced.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .