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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2507 ..

MR MOORE (12.10): I support this amendment, because I accept that when we discussed this issue I supported the amendments Mr Humphries proposes. What comes through is Mr Berry's real concern about this legislation, which of course is that Labor are likely to be out of government for 31/2 years instead of three years. That is the crunch that we are really dealing with. It reflects his lack of confidence in his ability to lead the Labor Party into a victory in the next election. Mr Berry realises that if Mr Whitecross had to go he was the only choice left. It was one of those choices when you say, "What is the least worst situation in what we have?" and Wayne Berry is it.

It seems to me that there has been more than adequate time to consider this legislation. It was tabled on 20 November and debated on 4 December. The Electoral Commissioner had brought his report down quite some time prior to that. The issues coming out of the report of the Electoral Commissioner should always be part of the consideration of a group. I suppose it is embarrassing for Mr Berry because the Labor Party have had a change-around, but what it reflects yet again is the lack of scrutiny that the Labor Party put into legislation and their inability to deal with it. That is the real crunch that we are dealing with here today.

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (12.12): Normally, a courtesy would be extended to members, but not to the Labor Party, it seems. That is fine. We are used to coping with adversity. That has been our history. I get a little sick and tired of some of the spite-filled observations which are made about what the Labor Party does and does not do in relation to its decision-making process. All that is at stake here is a week or so, so that I can have a bit of time to have a look at the issue. If it were anybody else who had brought this up in the Assembly, I suspect that it would have been agreed to without any difficulty. There would have been a bit of - - -

Mr Humphries: Persecution.

MR BERRY: Hang on a minute. There would have been a bit of a grumble and people asking, "Why did you not tell me this earlier?". There would have been a bit of a grizzle about it, but that would have been the end of it. If you want to ram this through, go for your life. There is nothing I can do about it, on the face of it, because everybody else has agreed that that is going to be the case. There is not much point in my kicking and screaming about it, because it would be a waste of energy; but the fact of the matter is that a reasonable request has been put to the Assembly. We have asked for the debate to be adjourned. You have refused to adjourn it, and we will have to cope with that. I just want to reiterate my position. We ought to have been extended the courtesy which has been extended so many times in this place, to the Greens more than to others, in relation to the adjournment of matters. I note that the Greens voted with the Government to ram this through. We will remember that. This sets a bit of a pattern. This sets an interesting precedent for the future.

MR WHITECROSS (12.14): I reluctantly rise again in this debate, once again to set the record straight on a couple of things. Mr Humphries, in his remarks a moment ago, suggested that I had misled the house and had misrepresented events in my previous speech on this matter. He then proceeded to relate a sequence of events which seemed to be, in all material respects, identical to the account I had given earlier. I can only say that I do not think he made out a case that I had misled anybody.

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