Page 3915 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 9 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries: Four hours.
MR LAMONT: Just over five hours. There would be just over five hours of debate on a matter that, I suggest, was given considerable consideration by the Select Committee on the Establishment of an ACT Public Service. That committee was unable to bring up a proposition that, at the end of the day, was supported overwhelmingly by this Assembly and allowed to pass into legislation. The more appropriate way to do it would now be to have that committee revisit that issue. If Mrs Carnell regards the existing legislation as being deficient, after having gone through this exhaustive process, then again I call on one of her colleagues to be courageous and to refer this Bill, in its specifics, to that committee. I suppose that, once again, we will see the Liberals not prepared to be courageous. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is obvious that the only way in which this Opposition can show its backbone is by the way in which they slide. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would even ask you to consider putting forward such a proposition in the interests of solidarity within your party.
MR KAINE (11.22): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sometimes confounded by the verbal acrobatics of some of the people opposite. What emerged from Mr Lamont's speech is that he needs to go away and to learn the rules of logic if he is going to make those kinds of rhetorical speeches. What he said was totally illogical, and he demonstrated his ability to jump from one side of an argument to another, depending on when it suits him. To deal with the question of whistleblowers legislation in the general, it is a matter that is before the standing committee that was established. In fact, we have done a great deal of work. We have accumulated a great deal of information from all over Australia about whistleblowers legislation and we have two meetings scheduled - one for next Friday and another for Thursday week - to discuss it; but we are looking at it in the general. Why are we doing that? Mr Lamont says that we should be looking at Mrs Carnell's Bill. There is one minor impediment - this Assembly has never referred the Bill to the committee for its consideration.
Mr Berry: It has.
MR KAINE: You have not. I correct you.
Mr Berry: It is understood that it is before the committee. Come on; that is rubbish.
MR KAINE: If it has been referred to the committee, Mr Berry, why does it remain on the notice paper as a live issue? It is on the paper as a live issue because it has never been referred anywhere. It is a private members Bill; it is Mrs Carnell's Bill. So, the matter is before this Assembly. It is not before the committee. Mr Lamont's great rhetoric falls apart at the seams. He has had plenty of time, if he thought that the Bill should be before the committee, to refer it to the committee. There has been no move from Mr Lamont, from Mr Berry or from anybody else to refer it there. The fact of the matter is that it is before this house. It is a private members Bill and it is here for debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .