Page 1868 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 19 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion (by Mr Berry) proposed:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Matters of Public Importance
MR HUMPHRIES (5.37): Madam Speaker, earlier today I sought leave to make a statement about matters of public importance in this place. That leave was denied. I would like, therefore, to make some comments about that topic now. A convention has developed in this place about matters of public importance.
Mr Berry: There is no such thing.
MR HUMPHRIES: A convention has developed in this place about such matters. To the best of my recollection and to the best of my research, before today there has been only one occasion on which a member of a government has put forward a matter of public importance in this Assembly.
Mr Wood: Do you want to elaborate on that?
MR HUMPHRIES: That was in the first month of the Assembly's sitting, when we were finding our way, when the Government was short of business, and the Assembly debated a matter of public importance concerning the status of women, which was put forward by Ms Follett, the Chief Minister at the time.
I was very happy, as were my colleagues, to debate the budget that was brought down last night; but we were appalled at the way in which the Opposition and non-government members were deprived of the opportunity of putting up an MPI again today. The device which was used by those opposite to do that was, in my view, reprehensible in the extreme. It is true that almost all members of this place, on almost every occasion - - -
Mr Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Mr Humphries just described the use of members' entitlements as reprehensible. The standing orders provide for members' entitlements, and Mr Humphries has imputed that there was something wrong in their use. This is, in my view, something that, in itself, is over the top.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, there is a clear implication of reprehensibility in what you were saying, and the standing orders were not broken.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .