Page 1701 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The last point: The Chief Minister stands up once again, hand on heart, saying what a terrible thing Mr Humphries did in being personal, and then proceeded for the next 20 minutes to attack Mr Stevenson, for heaven's sake. What humbug is that?
Ms Follett: Attack his policies.
MR DE DOMENICO: Double standards, Chief Minister, and that is something you are now renowned for. You have lost the other contact lens, I think. This debate is all about making sure that the people who have the power continue to have the power. This debate is all about ignoring the wishes of this Assembly and, therefore, the people. This is all about the arrogance of the ACT Labor Party in making sure that its mates get what they want.
Mr Moore: I raise a point of order under standing order 47, Madam Speaker, in terms of explanation of a word. Mr De Domenico talked about a missing - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Under standing order 47 you need leave of the Assembly, do you not?
Mr Moore: I just seek an explanation of a word that was used by Mr De Domenico.
MADAM SPEAKER: It says, "A member who has spoken to a question may again be heard to explain ...". That is when you yourself have spoken. It is not for somebody else to explain.
Mr Moore: I shall wait till I speak, Madam Speaker, and clarify it.
MR LAMONT (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Housing and Community Services, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (5.04): Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that Mr De Domenico was given the opportunity to vent his spleen, as he has this afternoon. Mr De Domenico venting his spleen in the way he did characterises the attitude of the Opposition in dealing with this matter. It is not a question of the functions of the Manager of Government Business that has been debated. It is not the work level or associated issues that have been debated. It has been quite specifically and deliberately the question of Mr Berry and the personality of Mr Berry.
I found that disturbing and distressing enough, but I then had to sit in this chamber and hear the absolute poppycock of Mr De Domenico, who said that it was right for this Assembly to take a vote and the majority - nine - were able to determine that a person misled the Assembly. It was fine for that to occur; that is democracy. Having nine votes is democracy. But, hang on; we operate under a set of standing orders that allowed that to occur. So we will now have a vote and, if nine members of this Assembly or more agree with the proposition, it is fine. There is nothing wrong with it. So why are you complaining?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .