Page 1815 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 19 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (11.17): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion which has been put forward by Mr Kaine. The Government will be supporting the motion. What I find most interesting about the matter is what I would describe as the extreme hypocrisy of Liberals standing to defend Canberra when - - -
Mr Kaine: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think that we have debated this question of whether "hypocrisy" is an acceptable word in this chamber. I would like that word withdrawn when it relates to the Liberal Party and the members of it.
MR BERRY: Oh, no; it is appropriate.
MADAM SPEAKER: The ruling, from memory, was that it was allowable so long as there were no improper imputations.
Mr Kaine: Are you going to rule that he can use it but we cannot?
MR BERRY: I did not call you a hypocrite.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Kaine, I would not do that. There was a neutral ruling on it on which I sought advice. From memory, what I said at the time was that in the joust of debate it was acceptable in different times and different places, and I also said that it was acceptable so long as there were no improper motives attributed in the use of the words. I believe that I have ruled fairly on both sides on that basis. I think that Mr Berry was using it in the joust of debate, with no improper motives, or without putting any improper imputations on your words, Mr Kaine. Mr Berry, if that is the case, I am sure you would withdraw any implication of improper motives on Mr Kaine's part, and be simply using the word in debate. That would be my interpretation of what is happening now. Mr Berry, would you confirm that, please?
MR BERRY: A further interpretation of that would be the Liberals saying one thing and meaning another, and that is what this is all about. The Liberals rise to support a motion which sets out to defend Canberra, and that is a good thing; but, on the other hand, they support a glitzy grab bag of political promises which will inflict an almighty blow to the people of the ACT. The glitzy grab bag of promises contains some frightful impacts for the people of the ACT. That is why I call it the "frightpack". That is what it is. It is a "frightpack". The Liberals on the one hand stand to defend Canberra, but what about the "frightpack"? What will that do to the people of the ACT? What will it do to the ACT?
Mr Kaine: What about One Nation? You have forgotten about that.
MR BERRY: I will start to talk a bit about that. "Frightpack" will rip the core out of our employment. Mr Kaine knows that the public sector - - -
Mr Humphries: I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. The motion that is before the Assembly is about perceptions of Canberra and Federal Government policy being attributed to the city of Canberra. Mr Berry is talking about the Fightback package. I think, Madam Speaker, that this is not relevant to the matter that Mr Kaine put on the notice paper.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .