Page 4020 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO: I am talking about the piece of paper that you alluded to, Mr Wood. You stood up and waxed lyrical about how strong your arguments were. Madam Speaker, could you please afford me the same protection that we gave Mr Wood?
MADAM SPEAKER: I am sorry; I was distracted.
MR DE DOMENICO: Mr Wood, it is a fact that Mr Berry, the Minister for Health, had a legal opinion dated 18 September 1991. There is no doubt about that. When did Mr Berry take any action? Madam Speaker, Mr Berry took action 14 months later, in November 1992. So, for you, Mr Wood, with respect - - -
Mr Wood: You are putting Berry and Humphries in the same boat. That is what Mr De Domenico is doing.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Wood, order, please! Mr De Domenico has the floor.
MR DE DOMENICO: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr Lamont: I rise to a point of order. Mr De Domenico seems to insist that the procedures of the chamber be followed. Maybe he would care to address the Chair in his remarks.
Mr Kaine: You are very sensitive about people addressing the Chair, aren't you? You are up and down like a yoyo.
Mr Lamont: It is what is supposed to happen. If you want quietness, address the Chair.
Mr Wood: I work on the basis that if someone sits down I am entitled to stand up. That is my background. If Mr De Domenico sits down I will stand up.
MR DE DOMENICO: Would you please name him, Madam Speaker?
MADAM SPEAKER: I would like to warn him a little first, Mr De Domenico. You are so warned, Mr Wood.
MR DE DOMENICO: Let me start again, Madam Speaker. Mr Wood stood up before and said that Mr Humphries had this enormous amount of time, about eight weeks, whilst on one hand getting advice from his department that he was not in a position to do anything on the floor of this house. Quite candidly, Mr Berry, on the other hand, this Minister who is such a reformist Minister, took 14 months before he did something. So, Mr Wood's argument has just been blown out of the water, I suggest.
Madam Speaker, may I also now attempt to revert this argument to where it belongs? There are two important issues that go to the very heart of what Mr Stevenson's motion is all about. The first one is whether Mr Berry failed to uphold the law as it existed, and as he knew it existed, as it then was, notwithstanding the seeming confusion. As the law existed at the time, did Mr Berry uphold it? That is question No. 1. Question No. 2 is: Did Mr Berry mislead the house? Notwithstanding what views individual members of this Assembly might have on the HIV issue, it has nothing to do, I suggest, with the matter before us.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .