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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3185 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

I also want to express my own heartfelt and humble appreciation to the Collingwood Football Club for regenerating interest in Australian Rules right round this country. It is due to their achievements this year in getting into the grand final in Melbourne that we have such an interest here in Canberra-an interest that sparked on the Belconnen Magpies to win the premiership this year. They were led by their glorious comrades in that fair state of Victoria.

I thought the effort by Collingwood to reach the grand final was a magnificent achievement and I look forward to celebrating their success on Saturday. Whilst I do, of course, wish that other team all the very best, I cannot help but think that in the interests of the international propagation of our sport the good old black and white will have to reign supreme.

Apologies

Assembly-members

MR HUMPHRIES (Leader of the Opposition) (4.16): Mr Speaker, I won't talk about football.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR HUMPHRIES: What I will do is tender an apology to Mr Hargreaves because I misrepresented him.

Mr Hargreaves: You old lion, you.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I will ignore the interjections. In debate on an MPI on 28 August I accused Mr Hargreaves of using the phrase "subverting the constitutional process". He denied that at the time. I have checked the Hansard and he was quite right. What he said was:

They must subvert the democratic process and revert to the constitutional monarchy model.

So I correct the record there and tender my apology.

Mr Speaker I also noted a comment by the Chief Minister earlier today relating to the adjournment of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Bill. The Chief Minister was critical of the fact that the house had adjourned that bill, apparently against the wishes of the government. I am a bit intrigued by the comment, Mr Speaker, and I understand that you are checking whether that was a breach of standing orders. But quite apart from that fact, I am just intrigued by how it is possible, in a house where at the present time the government has eight votes and everybody else has eight votes, for a motion to be passed to adjourn a particular bill.

It seems to me that if everybody else thinks it should be adjourned and you think it shouldn't, that motion must fail on equality of votes. Perhaps Mr Stanhope or his colleagues weren't quick enough to rise to their feet and simply say that they didn't

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