Page 1714 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MADAM SPEAKER: The standing order is quite clear.
Mr Kaine: Your rulings are quite illogical, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Kaine, I do not need your assistance in this matter. Let us get down to the basics of what I understand the standing order to say. You are not in any situation allowed to impugn the motives of a member in the Assembly. As I understand what you are saying, you are clearly impugning the motives of a member in this Assembly.
MR STEVENSON: I did not say that. I said that there were two possibilities about what was said. I did not say which one was valid.
MADAM SPEAKER: But it does not matter, Mr Stevenson. The mere fact that you offer them as possibilities means that one of them is a reality as much as the other.
MR STEVENSON: I offered them as possibilities because I have raised the matter many times in this house when the Chief Minister was here. I wonder why it was that she would say what she said.
MADAM SPEAKER: I think you had better withdraw it, Mr Stevenson, and try again in a different form.
MR STEVENSON: I withdraw, and I will try again in a different way. I have mentioned in this house many times, and outside the house many times, that before the first election and the second election we said that we would do four things. The first was that, with nine or more members elected to the Assembly, we would abolish it, and after the second election we would do the same thing, but starting with the first election. The second thing we said was that, if we could not do that, we would seek to encourage other members to hold a referendum, like the 1978 referendum, when people gave a resounding no to this State-like government. One should not use the term "self-government" because it never has been and never was meant to be.
The third point I made was that, if we could not do either of those things, we would work to represent the majority expressed will of the people of Canberra and the Constitution, and introduce the right of citizens to call referendums. That is what I actually said. The Chief Minister suggests that I did not do what I said I would do. That is not true. To the best of my ability I have represented the constitutional law, I have represented the majority expressed will of the people in this electorate, and I have also introduced citizens referenda legislation, after many years of educating people. That was what I said.
Mr Lamont: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With reference to standing order 46, it quite specifically says that a member may explain matters of a personal nature, although there may be no question before the house; but it then goes on to say that such matters may not be debated. Mr Stevenson is debating it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .