Page 208 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Canberra Times cartoon which recently featured prominently in this building is not too far from the truth in the minds of a great many people in this city who believe in freedom of choice, who believe in civil liberties, who believe in a capacity to think for themselves, Mr Connolly; who are not impressed by fanatics, who are not impressed by zealots who, having achieved a position where they are representing the community, seek not to follow the views of the community but rather to follow their own narrow agendas. I think this is something that we have to watch very carefully. We all have a responsibility to represent the people who put us here and not, I repeat, our own particular interests.
Mr Berry interjected on numbers of my colleagues about who was in whose pocket. Let me repeat: Why, Mr Berry, have you exempted the casino from this particular piece of legislation? Whose pocket are you in, or whose pocket is your Labor Government in? Hello, there is silence from the Government benches.
Mr Berry: It is boredom; that is all.
MR CORNWELL: I do not know. I think you are probably trying to work out how you are going to weasel out of it when it comes your turn to respond.
Mr Berry: You should have read the introductory speech, and you would have seen what was going to happen.
MR CORNWELL: Mr Berry, I am not interested in your speeches. I am interested in what is here in the legislation. Unfortunately, your speeches, my friend, are not the law. It is what is in this legislation that represents the law. I do not believe that even Mr Connolly would stand up in court and try to defend something because Mr Berry said that it was so in his tabling speech. If it is not in this wretched little five-page piece of legislation, then I put it to you that it simply does not have any basis in law in this Territory, irrespective of what you might like to say in your presentation speech. That is a nonsense argument.
I do not say that referring the legislation to a committee will satisfy all of my concerns. In fact, I doubt whether all of my concerns about this matter will ever be satisfied. I am genuinely of a mind that the smokers in this Territory are definitely being discriminated against. But, of course, as we have gone through history things have changed back and forth. These days there are laws to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race, colour and creed which 30 or 40 years ago did not exist. Now that the pendulum has swung we are having a go at smokers. In 30 or 40 years' time I suppose it will be something else.
There are many targets that you could have a look at, I suppose. It has always puzzled me, for example, Madam Speaker, why we do not take some action against the road toll. You can go out and buy a car with a speedometer that shows speeds up to 200 kilometres an hour. Nobody can drive at 200 kilometres an hour in Australia on any road, I would suggest to you. So one wonders - - -
Mr Lamont: That is wrong.
MR CORNWELL: You can attempt to, Mr Lamont, but I would be very careful.
Mr Lamont: Go to the Northern Territory. There are no speed limits there.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .