Page 867 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: That is what I am explaining. It is under standing order 46.
Mr Berry: It is not a personal explanation.
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, it is.
Mr Berry: It is not a personal explanation. Madam Speaker, he is debating the issue.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am entitled to do this. I am responding to a point that she raised. May I continue, Madam Speaker?
Mr Berry: Not if you debate the issue.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Berry, that is in fact the correct interpretation of standing order 46; but please continue, Mr Humphries, and contain it to a personal explanation.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, under standing order 46 I want to explain a matter which was misunderstood by the Chief Minister in the course of the debate. Am I entitled to do that?
MADAM SPEAKER: So long as it is of a personal nature. For members' benefit, let everybody hear this so that we know exactly what we are talking about. Standing order 46 says:
Having obtained leave from the Chair, a Member may explain matters of a personal nature, although there is no question before the Assembly; but such matters may not be debated.
So, if it is of a personal nature, by all means, Mr Humphries.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, it is not of a personal nature.
MADAM SPEAKER: It is the next standing order, I think, that you really wanted to use.
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, Madam Speaker; I am sorry. It is standing order 47 under which I should be making my explanation. I am grateful to the Deputy Chief Minister for bringing it to my attention so graciously. I seek leave, Madam Speaker, to make a statement under standing order 47.
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes, I grant leave.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, in the course of the debate just passed the Chief Minister suggested that I was being inconsistent with respect to my treatment of the question of choice in the health and education sectors. The Chief Minister correctly identified my view in respect of education as being that there ought to be more choice by the creation of more opportunities in the non-government sector, thus giving parents a choice between those two sectors. I then said that there were people in the public hospital system who ought not to be there. By saying that, I meant that they ought not to be there if they had a proper choice, if the choice was again generated by the Government by making sure that - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .