Page 2308 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (9.49): Mr Berry could make a valid point, if he feels that there has not been time to consult with the Liberal Party on the amendments, that amendments should not be made on the run. However, it is far too important an issue to negative simply because there has not been time. It is clear that the matter should be adjourned. Certainly, there would be time enough by Thursday to look at the matters. Should we not ensure that the legislation is correct, rather than adopt the view that we have not had time to look at it? That would make a lot more sense to me, and I would expect someone in the very near future to move an adjournment, to which I will agree.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (9.50): I must say that I am at a loss to understand Mr Berry's position. This proposal has been on the table since the day I lodged my Bill, over a month ago. This provision is contained in my Bill. Mr Berry, if he had bothered to read my Bill, would have known that. He has had a whole month to discuss it with me, if he thought there was something wrong with it.
I do not believe that Mr Berry is so simple-minded that he does not understand the intent of this amendment. It is quite straightforward; it is quite clear. Mr Berry has had ample time to discuss it with the Liberal Party, had he not been so intent on getting his own grubby Bill on the table to circumvent the Opposition's Bill. That is what this is all about. Do not pretend that you do not understand it. Let us be honest as to what this debate is about. It is clearly your intention to do everything in your power to prevent my Bill from getting up. That is what this debate is about. Do not talk about adjournment or anything else. You have no intention of adjourning it. You have no intention of entertaining one single thought, no matter how good it is for the community. No matter how it relieves people of a tax burden, you do not want to know about it. That is what the debate is really about.
Mr Berry: Why don't you move to adjourn it?
MR KAINE: The initiative is entirely up to you.
MR CORNWELL (9.51): Madam Speaker, could I try to get some commonsense back into this. I have learnt one thing in this debate tonight, and that is that I will never send the Minister for Health a two-page letter. It is obvious that he cannot handle two pages. What we are suggesting, as Mr Humphries explained and I will repeat, is that we send out the rates requirement and the land tax requirement - two pieces of paper - in the same envelope, but they have to be paid by different dates. There is nothing complex about this. For Mr Berry to say that he wants an adjournment to consider the matter I find extraordinary.
Mr Berry: No, I do not care. It is up to you.
MR CORNWELL: I am sorry, sir; you were just opposing this. It is a matter of sheer commonsense. I am amazed that Mr Berry cannot understand what we are on about.
Mr Connolly: We know what you are on about.
MR CORNWELL: Mr Attorney is now inferring some sinister plan and plot in putting a rates notice and a land tax notice in the same envelope and sending them out. I do not see anything sinister in this. I find it very difficult to imagine anything sinister in it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .