Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2124 ..
MR STANHOPE: I haven't changed my position or the government's position at all; we've been working towards a position. We announced that position today. Indeed, the decision was finally made today in relation to the statute of limitations that would apply to children. It's not a new position or a changed position; it's the position we've been working towards.
Mr Smyth
: That's not what you said yesterday.MR STANHOPE
: It is precisely the position I said yesterday. The question is precisely that, Mr Smyth. You simply don't understand it. What I was saying was that the question that I would have expected the opposition to ask-could they have found the energy, the interest or the commitment to the issue to ask any questions at all-amongst the range of questions I would have asked had I been in opposition, was: "Well, what are you going to do? Why? Is it appropriate? Are there other options? What is the best way to proceed? Is that particular provision actually appropriate as against the rights of residents?"Mr Smyth
: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: under standing orders, he cannot presuppose what the opposition may or may not do; he has to actually answer the question. The question was: why did he say yesterday, "Do you really think it is necessary to reduce the statute of limitations from 24 years to six years?"Today he did that thing. Would he please explain why he now thinks it is so necessary to do so.MR SPEAKER
: The Chief Minister is explaining that to you.Mr Smyth
: No, Mr Speaker, he was talking about what he expected of an opposition; he was not answering the question.MR SPEAKER
: The Chief Minister was responding to the question and he will continue to stick to the subject matter, I'm sure.MR
STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, I do think we need to clarify the mistaken impression that the Leader of the Opposition is actually putting. Yesterday I posed a rhetorical question about what I would expect were questions: "Is it appropriate to reduce the statute of limitations from 24 years to six years?"That was the question I asked. That was what I said. I did not say yesterday that it's either appropriate or inappropriate. What I said was: "The question I would have expected an opposition, with any commitment to its role, to ask was a question along the line: is it appropriate?"Mr Smyth
: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the question is not about what he expects oppositions to ask. The question is about what he said yesterday. Do you think it is really necessary to reduce the statute of limitations from 24 years to six years? Apparently, yesterday it was rhetorical; today it is actual. Why does he think it is necessary to reduce the statute of limitations?MR SPEAKER
: I think he's explaining that to you, Mr Smyth, if you would just give him a go.Mr Smyth
: No, he certainly is not, Mr Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .