Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (25 February) . . Page.. 364 ..

MR SPEAKER: The short timeframe was an argument that you yourself advanced, Mr Berry.

Mr Moore: That part I did not have a problem with. It is then going to the reasons.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Humphries is within his rights to refer to the short timeframe, but Mr Humphries is under the same restrictions as anybody else here not to debate the substantive motion at the moment.

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, Mr Speaker, this is a central issue - the suspension of standing orders today. If we do not suspend standing orders, Mr Berry is at perfect liberty to introduce his Bill tomorrow and to debate it in April, if he wishes. I would argue very strongly that there are many people adversely affected, not by the legislation per se but by the very short timeframe in which this legislation is being brought forward.

It was, on my recollection, some weeks ago that the Industrial Relations Commission ruled that there was going to be no picnic day at all for the ACT. It was only on Sunday of this week that I read an article in the Canberra Times in which Mr Berry indicated he intended to bring forward legislation to change that situation. That was a very strange change of heart on the part of the man who said on 27 February last year, in relation to another matter the commission was adjudicating on:

It did go to the Industrial Relations Commission and there was a decision by the commission - - -

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, is quoting from a press release okay now?

MR SPEAKER: No, not necessarily. It depends on the relevance to the matter before the Chair.

MR HUMPHRIES: It continued:

We were supportive of the umpire, of course, which had not been the case with this Government. It was the umpire who was supported by the Australian Labor Party, and it will ever continue to be so.

Mr Whitecross: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: You were much tougher in picking Mr Berry up on relevance. Mr Humphries is debating the appropriateness of dealing with this issue in parliament. He is not debating the timeliness issue; he is debating the issue of whether the parliament should be dealing with it at all. Quite frankly, I think that is a matter that ought to be dealt with in the in-principle debate, not in the debate on the suspension of standing orders.

MR SPEAKER: We must not debate the substantive motion.

Mr Whitecross: That is what he is doing, Mr Speaker. If you were listening, you would know.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .