Page 1466 - Week 05 - Thursday, 13 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
claims are, because Mr De Domenico actually submitted his first. As I said, this shows you just how bad-luck-Gary has got on. What happened when Mr De Domenico submitted his ambit claim and ended up as deputy leader meant very quickly that the ex deputy leader reverted to the back bench. That is something which should continue to happen.
Removal of Notice
MR HUMPHRIES (5.08): Madam Speaker, I want to put on the record very briefly a response from the Opposition to what happened earlier today. We did take the unprecedented step of preventing a member of this Assembly from proceeding with a matter which was on the notice paper. That was a move which I do not think has occurred previously in this Assembly. It is a move of unprecedented, if you like, potential for unfairness; but I believe, and I was persuaded by speaking to members of the Government and with my own party colleagues, that this was a move which was appropriate in the circumstances. I believe that there was a very clear abuse of the privilege that membership of the Assembly entails in the placing on notice of that motion and the proceedings which would have flowed from that motion being debated. Madam Speaker, my party's position should be made very clear on the record as a result of that. We do not see this happening on future occasions where there is not broad support across the chamber for that kind of measure. Madam Speaker, that is our position.
Electricity and Water Charges
MR MOORE (5.09): Madam Speaker, my position echoes that of Mr Humphries, but I could not have thought of somebody better for it to happen to. There is some irony about this. The person who in this case lost the privilege to speak to this particular motion is the same person who does not wish to have parliamentary privilege at all; he would prefer to see a local council formed.
Madam Speaker, I would like to say a couple of other things. My letter to the editor would be about an ambit claim to do with electricity and water fees. One of the problems with writing a letter to the editor in my handwriting is that the editor, after trying to read my handwriting, may well not publish it. This, I would think, is the only reason my letters are not published. The Opposition, Ms Szuty and the Government indicated that they would support the new fees for electricity and water. I can understand that coming from the Liberal Party because it is a regressive form of taxation, as I perceive it. That is appropriate, coming from the Liberal Party. They went to a Federal election on a regressive form of taxation. As far as Labor is concerned, Madam Speaker, I think there is a great deal of hypocrisy associated with supporting any form of regressive taxation. What happens in this case is that, whilst $19m of electricity and water money goes into the Consolidated Revenue, the rise in fees means that there is a level across-the-board taxation system. That is regressive taxation, as they described the GST. So, whilst the Liberals can support that, as the GST did fit that, there is a great deal of hypocrisy in that sort of taxation being supported by Labor. I must say that I am shocked at the fact that Labor has proceeded down this way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .