Page 4015 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: All right. If a member objects I will withdraw; I am happy to withdraw. Mr Humphries did not take the opportunity that was offered, just a little time ago, when he said that he would respond as to what he did when he was Minister. He did not take the opportunity, and I wonder why he did not. Did he go back to those regulations? Did he, with his legal training, draw them up and say, "Look, maybe if we do it this way; let us look at this option."? I wonder whether he did that. The evidence is there that it was not brought to the Assembly. Both Mr Kaine and Mr Humphries, in the way they have answered this question, have clearly lost the argument. There are no grounds for them to carry on and to support this case because their own record in this area is quite inadequate. It demonstrates that they let things run and left it to Mr Berry to take some action to clarify the issues, to sort them out, and in the end to do something.
Madam Speaker, Mr Stevenson has come in here, as he is entitled to do, and has carried on the argument that Dr Proudfoot has been running. Dr Proudfoot is an ardent campaigner on a number of issues, and he is entitled to be. That is one of the strengths of the democratic society we live in, which was part of a debate earlier today. Mr Stevenson has picked up that brief and run with it, but this Assembly is the body that will judge the no-confidence motion. Mr Stevenson is obviously comfortable to run with that, because it suits his arguments about the notification of AIDS/HIV; but on the grounds here demonstrated, particularly the weak arguments of the Liberals, there is no basis for any support of what I think is an outrageous proposition.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, I seek leave under standing orders 46 and 47 to make a personal explanation.
MADAM SPEAKER: Standing order 46 is different from standing order 47, so we will do one at a time. In respect of standing order 46, yes, you have my leave.
MR HUMPHRIES: With respect, Madam Speaker, this both clarifies an argument in this debate - - -
Mr Berry: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a little worried and troubled by this sort of approach being taken by Mr Humphries. He is attempting to debate an issue through points of order. I am quite happy to support Mr Humphries making a personal explanation after the debate has concluded. If he is to make a personal explanation during the course of the debate, he should make sure that he is not debating the issue. I suspect that that is what he is going to attempt to do.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, I believe that you are entitled to make a personal explanation. Please continue.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, that is a fairly serious allegation and I want to respond to it. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The fact of life is that there was ambiguous legal advice before me and this minute clearly proves that that was the case. The argument - - -
Mr Berry: I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am happy for Mr Humphries to support what we have said; but, on a matter of principle and on the standing orders, he cannot proceed.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, you have already ruled that I can make this statement.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .