Page 3916 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 9 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The second point that I wanted to take up with Mr Lamont, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that just within the last hour we have had a debate about the right of a private member to dispose of their own private members Bill. He sat over there and he voted to say that Mr Berry's Bill could not be brought on for debate by this Assembly because it is Mr Berry's Bill and Mr Berry is entitled to dispose of it. He stood up 20 minutes later and said that Mrs Carnell cannot deal with her Bill. That is a private members Bill too. But no, she should not be bringing it on for debate; she should be referring it somewhere else. Where is the logic? I suggest that we will have to start calling Mr Lamont the chameleon because he can change his colour and his spots from one debate to the next.
There is another interesting aspect of his argument that this matter should not be debated here; that it should be debated in the committee. Mr Lamont had no compunction, a few weeks ago, about debating that part of the Public Sector Management Bill that dealt with whistleblower legislation, and he put it into effect. If it is wrong to debate the subject today, why was it right to debate it when we knew that there was controversy about that section of the Public Sector Management Bill? Why was it right and appropriate to debate that part of the Bill then? Mr Lamont wants to have his cake and to eat it too. It was okay to debate the Government's proposals, even though they were controversial and subject to question, and to enact them into law, knowing that there was going to be a public sector committee established to deal with the issue; but it is not okay to debate it today. What is the double standard that we operate under in this place?
It is quite appropriate, Mr Deputy Speaker, for Mrs Carnell to seek to have this Bill debated today as a specific document, a specific Bill before the house, even though there is a committee established that is looking at the issue in the general sense. We have a wide range of material, and out of that will emerge, I have no doubt, some recommendations to this place that will result in change to the Government's Act. If the Assembly did not intend that that be the case, why did it establish the committee, and why is it assumed by all the members of the Government that the committee is in fact looking at this matter? They know that we are looking at it and they know that we will make recommendations. Our recommendations can be in respect of amendments to the Government's Act, or they can be amendments to a new Act which would be put in place today if the Government had the gumption to debate the issue. But, no, they do not want to do that; it is not part of their agenda.
Mr Lamont stood up and rambled on for 20 minutes. First of all, he showed himself to be capable of switching from one side to the other at will, depending on the subject. Secondly, he showed that he has no sense whatsoever of developing a logical argument to sustain whatever position he chooses to adopt. He did not convince me. I remain satisfied that Mrs Carnell is entitled to have her Bill debated today. She should not have to stand this kind of personal assault because she seeks to bring forward her private members Bill, any more than Mr Berry should sustain some kind of personal assault because he chooses not to. We dealt with that matter only a little while ago. Here we have the same situation, but the members of the Government have moved to the opposite side of the argument. They do not want to sustain the argument that they were happy to try to sustain a little while ago.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .