Page 1131 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 23 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE: The reason why I have moved this is very straightforward. We have heard a lot of debate, and this is the last opportunity for members of the Assembly to consider their vote. Once they vote on this clause, the Bill will pass. I seek to have members consider this very carefully. I would like to refer to a few things that came out during the debate and draw the attention of the people who made those statements to one fact.
Mr Wood spoke very earnestly about reducing the number of abortions - a very worthy, very commendable objective - but repealing this Act will not achieve it. The simple repealing of this Act will in no way affect the number of abortions. Mrs Carnell spoke about setting in place - - -
Mr Moore: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, under standing order 52: I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is reflecting upon a vote of the Assembly that has already been taken.
MR KAINE: Mr Moore does not want to debate the detail stage of the Bill. He wants to ram it through without further debate.
Mr Moore: No, I am just raising the issue of standing orders. If you want to say that the standing orders will do it, fine.
MADAM SPEAKER: The standing order Mr Moore is referring to states:
A Member may not reflect upon any vote of the Assembly, except upon a motion that such vote be rescinded.
Mr Kaine, proceed, and just keep that in mind, please.
MR KAINE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not reflecting on the vote; I am reflecting on what people said in connection with that vote. I think it is a rather different matter. Mrs Carnell spoke about setting in place a full process relating to abortion - again, a commendable and worthy objective - but repealing this Act does absolutely nothing to achieve it. This Bill is about repealing a Act. Other members spoke about arrangements that would remove the necessity to travel to Sydney for an abortion. Repealing this Act will not affect that one iota.
Mr Connolly: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Having had the opportunity to study more carefully the standing orders, I draw your attention to standing order 141, which says:
An amendment shall not be moved if it is inconsistent with a previous decision on the question.
As we are debating a repealing Bill and as the Assembly has taken a vote and recorded 10-7 in-principle agreement on a repealing Bill, I would draw your attention to that standing order. The question that must arise is: Is not an amendment to remove the operative repealing provision inconsistent with a previous decision on the question, the Assembly having just voted 10-7, in principle, in favour of a repealing Bill?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .