Page 4432 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It was certainly understood by members at that meeting - certainly by me - that the 29th would be an inconvenient time for the Speaker, in particular, and for Mr Stevenson. It was made clear to us that the Speaker would be on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association business on that day. Mr Stevenson told us that he had commitments. I think the commitments of the Assembly override the other commitments, except when we are talking about a Chief Minister representing us at a Premiers Conference. I accept that that is an exceptional circumstance.
We should be able to reach a compromise, but I believed that a compromise had already been reached and that the best we could do was Friday, the 29th. It did not suit everybody, and that is a shame. However, it was the best we could do. Therefore, I stated at the time that I was prepared to support a motion that would call on private members' business on the 29th and that I was prepared to accept that the 22nd was now not suitable. I still stand by that.
DR KINLOCH (8.18): I make just a small point. There is certainly nothing mischievous in what is going on. I agree that we should find a very suitable time. There was one other factor about the 29th. Three of us were in Sydney. We were not here to be heard. Three of us knew that we had the meeting of one of the select committees of the Assembly on the 29th. The public hearings of that committee are on the 29th.
MR HUMPHRIES (8.18): This is a rather ridiculous debate. I do not want to contribute to it at any great length; but I have to say that there is a real issue here of, if you like, an order of precedence. Whose right to do other things at the time the Assembly proposes to sit takes precedence over other persons' rights. If the Chief Minister is representing the Territory at a Special Premiers Conference, even a renegade Special Premiers Conference, I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that prior right, and I agree fully that the Assembly should not sit on that day.
But I think it is a little bit, dare I say, churlish of the Government to say, "We insist on the 29th. The 22nd is not suitable because the Chief Minister is away. The 29th does not suit the Speaker. That is too bad. The Speaker is just a Speaker. He is not the Chief Minister. It does not suit Mr Stevenson, but Mr Stevenson is just a leader of one of the parties. He does not matter either. And the fact that the Select Committee on Hospital Bed Numbers suggested a committee hearing for the 29th does not really matter either". I think, Mr Speaker, that is an attitude which is a little bit regrettable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .