Page 1641 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Follett: Madam Speaker, I reiterate my point of order. I feel that it will be in Hansard as you made a reference to the gag. Mr De Domenico did interject that your ruling was in effect a gag. I think that is a reflection on the Chair's ruling to which you responded, so it will be on the record. I ask him to withdraw that reflection.
Mr De Domenico: Speaking to that point of order, Madam Speaker: You correctly ruled, Madam Speaker, I believe, that you had suspended the proceedings in the house. My remark was made across to the other side of the floor whilst the house was suspended.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr De Domenico, just to clarify a point: If it is to go into Hansard, even if the meeting is suspended, will you withdraw it?
Mr De Domenico: Yes.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr Kaine: Except that it did not relate to the Speaker; it related to you. Let us put that on the record.
MADAM SPEAKER: That is fine; thank you.
MR STEVENSON (11.40): There are certain principles in this matter that are very important. It is unfortunate that personalities and our concern for different sides of legislation or different aspects of legislation enter into these things. I would like to highlight some relevant principles that we would all agree with. The first one is that time should not enter into the question when we talk about legislation - whether something takes five hours, five days, five weeks, five months or five years. The key is that the legislation be sound. That is the correct principle. While there are many things that it is important to debate in this Assembly - things like unemployment particularly - and we can do a lot by working together on these things, there is a Bill before the house and many people in the community are concerned about it. The fact that some of us may disagree with some of those viewpoints really does not enter into it. We need to fully debate these matters.
It is on record a number of times in this Assembly that legislation that we have passed has had flaws that we have had to change. The latest was the Bill to do with land tax that we were discussing before the Animal Welfare Bill came on. We could have done a better job at the time. Unfortunately, the time was not available during that debate. We can gain assistance from individuals and groups in the community who are affected by the legislation. Much has been made about Alliance Government statements about animal welfare, but these are really in-principle statements. There is an entirely different situation with an in-principle statement and the detailed statement of legislation.
Who would disagree in principle with looking after animals? You could go and ask Canberrans by the tens of thousands and you would not find anybody. So we agree with this. There are many things in this legislation that are excellent, that nearly everybody would agree with. I think that the unfortunate division that tends to show up in this Assembly - it may not necessarily be there, but it tends to show up - really detracts from the basic in-principle agreement that we have on protecting animals. The truth of the matter is that they cannot protect themselves, particularly when they are in domestic use. We need to be concerned about those things, and we are.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .