Page 3811 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
SUSPENSION OF STANDING AND TEMPORARY ORDERS
Motion (by Mr Stefaniak) proposed:
That so much of standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent consideration of notice No. 16, private members' business, being finalised.
MR BERRY (Deputy Chief Minister) (12.34): This is absolutely crazy. They just moved the gag on consideration of this matter. I see that Dr Kinloch supported the gag on himself, and now we move to extend the sitting to consider the matter further. It is beyond any sort of common sense. The issue was gagged, but it ought to have been left open for further debate. The Government was going to move substantial amendments which go to the heart of the motion. To gag debate on it, firstly, and now to throw it to a vote is absolutely over the top.
It strikes me that people ought to think a little bit more clearly about this issue. They are making geese of themselves again and, as a gaggle, they are certainly becoming less and less impressive as the day goes by. I think it will be the cause of great amusement for this inquiry to proceed, because it has nothing to inquire into, for a start. There is no inquiry into the Government's proposed reduction in bed numbers because there is nothing to inquire into. It is a joke.
Dr Kinloch: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is not the present speaker now debating the original motion rather than the question of whether or not we - - -
MR SPEAKER: Yes, I uphold your objection. Mr Berry, I draw you back to the point we are debating.
MR BERRY: Therefore, on the issue of the suspension of standing orders, it is very important that members have some time now to consider this matter and perhaps to be lobbied with some sensible suggestions. There has been no sense in the debate for this motion. I think people need to reflect on the effect of what they are up to and what they would be supporting by way of the political stunt that has been proposed by Mr Humphries. They do not have sufficient time. And Mr Humphries himself, in a former debate, argued that these sorts of inquiries are a waste of time.
MR SPEAKER: Order! I bring you back to the question. The question is whether we wish to take a vote.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .