Page 5143 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: Mr Stevenson has indicated that all he intends to do is block this legislation and delay it. He said that and it is on the record. I intend not to allow him to get away with that. We might as well get onto where people have meaningful amendments to consider. We might as well get to them and just work our way through the Bill. I understand that you, Mr Speaker, would be concerned about members' rights; but other members have rights in this place and they seek to deal with amendments that are meaningful, not amendments that are designed just to block the passage of this Bill or delay it. I am happy to take any ruling that you have on the matter.
MR SPEAKER: I thank you for that, Mr Berry, and I will let you know when it can be called to a halt. Mr Stevenson, would you be prepared to seek leave to move all your amendments to clause 8 together, instead of addressing them one by one?
MR STEVENSON: I was going to say earlier, before Mr Berry hopped to his feet, that I am happy to have the amendments on the typed sheet I put out taken together and then the other ones separately - without reasonable cause.
Mr Berry: What about Nos 8 to 30? Can we do them all together as well?
MR SPEAKER: Please proceed with the one you are on now, Mr Stevenson.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Berry suggests that I should have my right to speak to this particular clause removed. This is a man who suggests that he is standing here fighting for human rights. The hypocrisy of the statement is absolutely blinding. Mr Berry would say that the words "or proposes to treat" - in other words, that someone merely proposes to commit an offence - are perfectly acceptable and there can be nobody who disagrees with their clause.
Mr Berry: This allows for racial vilification, and that is what you are about.
MR STEVENSON: That is an appalling statement. Mr Berry makes so many interjections that it is hard to handle them all, one after the other, time permitting, and when I speak on a few he hops to his feet and tries to gag me, saying that it is not important. Perhaps the first thing he could do is stop making interjections rather than asking the questions, which I will reply to.
I would have thought it fairly obvious that we should not adopt the provision against a proposal to treat someone unfavourably. How can we sit here and say that we are going to make it an offence for someone to propose to do something? The potential for mischief under that clause is high. We should not have a law against people who talk about something or who write on something. This is not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .