Page 1668 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: Under the standing order you are referring to, Mr Moore, I have not yet proposed Mr Stevenson's motion, so we cannot put the motion you have moved.
Mr Moore: Then, how can he be speaking?
MADAM SPEAKER: Let me explain. Let us get this straight; I may have confused you. When I actually propose the question, it is at that point that you can move, "That the question be now put". At the moment, Mr Stevenson has only moved the motion. That is my advice. That is what this rule is intended for. Mr Stevenson can speak, and then, when I propose the question, before the next person speaks you can move the motion "That the question be now put".
MR STEVENSON: The point I make is clear: Many members of this Assembly, representing a huge number of people in Canberra, have said that there are many things wrong with this Bill. On the majority of occasions the Minister and the Labor members have said, "That is not correct; it is nonsense; you are wasting time; you should not be putting those points; you are saying it again", and so on. That is what has been happening. The point I raised about the aquarium and the matter that we had just before the - - -
Mr Moore: Madam Speaker, I move for the suspension of so much of the standing orders as would prevent Mr Stevenson from continuing in this debate. No doubt somebody will put the gag on that.
MADAM SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Moore; but you cannot interrupt him to move a motion. You can interrupt him to raise a point of order, but not to move a motion. When I propose the question, that is the time to move your motion under standing order 70.
MR STEVENSON: I really had no wish to bring up a censure motion; but, as I said, I have been absolutely frustrated at the total lack of preparedness to debate the points, and I suggest that this is another example.
The Minister has already acknowledged that the aquarium, as far as fishing goes, would have been put out of business by the legislation. But for the persistence of people on this side of the Assembly, it would have been an offence to promote within the ACT a rodeo outside the ACT. It was only through an incredible attempt by members on this side of the house to get that point agreed with.
Mr Lamont: Members of your Opposition.
MR STEVENSON: I do not take any notice of Opposition or whatever. We should never be in opposition to everything all the time; it is a nonsense. We should be prepared to debate matters that come before the Assembly without fixed viewpoints. I think it is unfortunate that there are fixed viewpoints. I find the refusal to debate legislation, to look at opposing points of view or different viewpoints on legislation, to be far more worthy of censure than something that a person may do. Although a person may do something that is censurable, it is far more important to censure when someone does something or omits to do something that has potential for creating great harm across the community. An unethical activity of one individual may not affect the community. In effect, the Minister has already acknowledged that there is a real likelihood of the Bill being flawed. Not only that; he has acknowledged that the Bill was flawed, and that is why there have been changes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .