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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1864 ..

MR SPEAKER: Order! I know it is late, but the fact of the matter is that we have had a very good debate today and I want to keep it that way, thank you. It is an important issue. I do not want constant interjections from either side.

MR HUMPHRIES: If there is evidence which has not been referred to this place, put on the table, articulated or presented under the protection of parliamentary privilege but which those opposite still seek to rely on - and the DPP has already been referred to by Mr Hargreaves - if they want to rely on this evidence but are not prepared to produce it, then those on the crossbench should reject this case out of hand.

Mr Speaker, I come to Mr Corbell's remarks. I do not want to say much about Mr Corbell except to say that he had obviously spent very little time researching his particular remarks. He said that there were a number of Australian governments which had fallen by way of a motion of no confidence. I want to quote from House of Representatives Practice again, page 342:

Mr Speaker made reference to that in his remarks. Governments have fallen on other issues, on other votes, for things like rejection of their budget, rejection of amendments to certain Bills and so on, but never on the basis of a direct vote of no confidence in the House of Representatives. There was a motion of no confidence in Prime Minister Fraser on 11 November 1975, I might point out for the sake of completeness of record, but he had already called an early election and parliament was therefore prorogued at the point where that particular vote occurred. For Mr Corbell's information, the Curtin Government was not preceded by the Menzies Government but by the Fadden Government. Mr Corbell got his information wrong.

I mention one more thing that Mr Corbell said in this debate. He said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That is quite true. He said, "Imagine if a person gets in his car and drives down the road in front of his own house and tells a police officer that he did not know that the speed limit was 60 kilometres an hour". I have a better metaphor to use in this debate. My kids or somebody has taken the rear numberplate off my car. I get in my car and I drive down the street. A police officer pulls me up and says, "Do you realise that you do not have a rear numberplate and that you are breaking the law?". I say, "No, I did not realise that". Am I ignorant of the law? No, I am not. I am perfectly well aware that my car has to have a numberplate on the front and the back. Was I aware that the law was being broken? No.

Mr Moore: Do you know the section?

MR HUMPHRIES: Do I know the section in the legislation? Can I cite the particular provision of the Motor Traffic Act which makes it illegal to do that? No, I cannot. But I do have an idea of what my obligations are under the law. (Further extension of time granted) Again I say to those people in this debate that if the Minister concerned was not aware that the law was being broken, on what basis should she be condemned tonight in this place? On what precedent? Of course, there is none.

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