Page 1681 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: Starting from the day when you, Mr De Domenico, were out feeding peanuts to elephants and bringing shackled elephants to this Assembly, this is the first time in this Second Assembly that we have seen the sort of media ridicule heaped upon this place that we used to see. That was your signal achievement.
Mr Kaine: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought we had decided some 48 or 24 hours ago that we were going to focus on the subject matter clause by clause. I do not see any relevance in what Mr Connolly is saying to clause 18, the clause we are talking about. I think he should be brought back to the subject that is under debate.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Kaine.
MR CONNOLLY: I understand Mr Kaine's sensitivity on this matter.
Mr Kaine: I am not sensitive at all, but I would like you to concentrate on the issue.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Kaine.
MR CONNOLLY: Madam Speaker, the debate on this clause is once again the debate of absurdity. It is the debate of the little boy with the peach. It is the debate where the Liberal Party find a clause, dream up the most trivial example that can possibly fall within that definition, and then say, "It is appalling; you are creating an horrendous offence".
There is a subtle variation to that critique which is being used in the debate on this clause, Mr Kaine, that runs something like this: If the Government defends a Bill or a clause, the Government is being closed-minded, arrogant, insensitive, and not open to debate. That is part one of the attack. Part two of the attack is that, if the Government looks at a legitimate criticism raised by the Opposition and acknowledges it, the Government is stupid and was wrong in the first place. It demonstrates the Government's - - -
Mr Kaine: You have not done that yet. When did you do that? Which clause was that on?
MR CONNOLLY: In relation to this precise clause, Mr Kaine; in relation to the fish. After the debate on the fish, when Mr Humphries and I had a close look at it, and when I showed it to the advisers and we had a close look at it, we acknowledged that you are right on that. A government amendment follows. Of course, the penalty that the Government suffers from entering into that sort of dialogue is the diatribe that we get from you. The mere fact that the Government puts up an amendment, you say, shows that the Bill is in itself faulty. The Government cannot win, Madam Speaker. If we try to ram a Bill through, as it were, we are criticised for being insensitive and not open to debate. If we are open to criticism and we look at proposals, you then attack us for the Bill being fundamentally flawed. It is an argument that is impossible to win.
Madam Speaker, three days on, when I, in particular, have on the notice paper some legislation that will help the building industry and contribute to job creation, you people should be ashamed of yourselves for turning this Second Assembly into the sorry spectacle that marked this place 12 months ago. It is all your own work and I hope you are proud of yourselves.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .