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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2856 ..

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, I do not need to go to the detail of that letter. My leader, Mr Stanhope, went through it in great detail and explained the urgency of delaying consideration of this matter. Mr Speaker, I can count, and I think the numbers are against postponement, although some members have not spoken. I simply base my calculations on some assumptions, which I think are not wild.

That is a pity, because I think it sends a message to the community that this Assembly, before it enters into a debate about the in-principle issues concerning this sort of legislation, is not prepared to inform itself. An Assembly that is not prepared to inform itself is an irresponsible Assembly. In the course of debate over the ensuing hours, we will labour each point of this legislation until we get to the detail stage, and none of us will be properly informed when we get there, or fully informed, or adequately informed, because we will not have listened to the experts in the field. We will not have adequately explored the detail of the legislation which has been put before us.

I turn to some other amendments which came to my office after the Assembly began its sitting. They are the amendments which Mr Moore has prepared, described as the paste-up version. I think that is how it is described.

Mr Moore: No; there are the amendments, and then you have a paste-up version so you can read it more easily.

MR BERRY: Mr Moore, I have read it only once. In fact, I have not read it yet. So, this presents another dimension for consideration. On a quick scan, I see that they propose amendments to legislation which it is anticipated will endure the process in the Assembly. In principle, I have a great deal of difficulty with the proposal by Mr Moore. I have heard him say that he is looking for the least worst situation. I guess I will have to try to inform myself in the short time available to me whether those proposals which he has put forward are the least worst; indeed, whether they are tolerable. But my in-principle position is that I am concerned about them. I heard what he said earlier in relation to this matter and acknowledge that he has a preferred position in relation to the matter. That is probably irrelevant to this debate about postponement but it is worthy of mention in the debate.

Mr Speaker, I will be disappointed, as many of my colleagues who support me on this matter will be, if the numbers do not stack up for this postponement. It is an important move on an important piece of legislation, which is now extremely controversial, given the additional advice and information which have come to us even while we sat. I was curious as to why Mr Osborne went to great lengths to mention the Discrimination Commissioner's name. I was troubled that that had a streak of meanness in it; but he says that he intended no imputation. Then I wonder why he mentioned her name. In any event, that troubled me.

I heard Mr Rugendyke's contribution to the debate. I am disappointed that he will not stand up for his constituents that are concerned about this legislation and listen for just a little longer. I heard some reports about his position this morning. I think it was reported that he had not made up his mind yet. I say, Mr Rugendyke, that between now and the end of the in-principle debate is a very short period, and I do not know how you are going to find yourself properly informed by the end of this day. I do not, for the

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