Page 915 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 17 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think it would make good sense, without putting it to a vote in the Assembly, if Mrs Carnell were to withdraw the Bill and rethink her position for the moment. I would recommend to Mrs Carnell that she also consider her participation on the Drugs Committee while it considers these matters. I suggest to her that she withdraw the Bill and consider her position. One of her Liberal colleagues might want to present the Bill later on.
MADAM SPEAKER: Let me respond to the point of order. I will consult the Clerk for further advice in a moment. But, as I understand it, none of us has yet seen the Bill. So the Assembly is not in a position to judge whether standing order 156 applies or not.
Mr Berry: Mrs Carnell is, though.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mrs Carnell is, yes, of course. But the Assembly is not in a position to judge. Of course, on this particular question, as I understand it - and this is what I was going to consult the Clerk on, just to be absolutely sure - it is the Assembly that decides whether the matter is a matter of conflict.
The procedure is quite clear. Either Mrs Carnell can choose to withdraw the Bill of her own accord or the Bill can be presented to the Assembly and the Assembly, once it has seen the Bill, can decide whether it is in contravention of standing order 156 and the provisions of the self-government Act. That is my ruling on the matter. Mrs Carnell, you may proceed.
Mr Kaine: Madam Speaker, I would seek leave to speak to the point of order raised by Mr Berry.
MADAM SPEAKER: There is no provision to speak to points of order.
Mr Kaine: I am seeking leave to do so, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Kaine. I was not listening carefully enough.
Mr Kaine: I seek leave to speak on the point of order.
Leave granted.
Mr Kaine: My reason for speaking, Madam Speaker, is that Mr Berry has legitimately raised a point that I think every member of this Assembly should be concerned about. I think it is reasonable to say that it perhaps raises in the minds of onlookers who are not aware of what is going on in here a question as to Mrs Carnell's motives and perhaps even her integrity. So I think something needs to be said in counter to the proposition put forward by Mr Berry.
I am not disputing for a moment the propriety of Mr Berry in raising the matter he raised. But I think there are one or two points that need to be on the record in this matter, and then Mrs Carnell is free to make up her own mind about what she does from there. The first is that, of course, Mr Berry's point has to do with contracts. There is no contract involved here. All we are debating is the general proposition that the Government should open up treatment centres. If after that there is a contract to be put into place, then arises the question of whether Mrs Carnell has a conflict of interest or not. But I do not believe that the question of conflict of interest comes into the general proposition that the treatment centres should be established by the Government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .