Page 4140 - Week 14 - Thursday, 25 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
advise what Government assistance was provided to CARA? Have they met conditions associated with the grant and is it true that the documentation was confidential, as claimed?
MR COLLAERY: I thank Mr Jensen for the question. Yes, that was an interesting report in the Canberra Times and I understand that those named in it might be seeking advice in relation to certain aspects, so I will mute my answer.
Certainly, Mr Speaker, a grant of $45,000 - - -
Mr Moore: Oh, remember the schools. Sub judice. We ought not discuss it.
MR COLLAERY: It is not sub judice. A grant of $45,000 - - -
Mrs Grassby: It is when you feel like it, and it is not when you do not.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR COLLAERY: If that group want to do a law course, they can.
Mr Moore: I take a point of order. I think we need a clarification, Mr Speaker. On one hand Mr Collaery has indicated that a matter that is likely to come before the courts in the schools case is sub judice. This matter is likely to come before the courts; so it must also therefore be sub judice and perhaps he ought not be discussing it.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Moore.
Mr Connolly: You have to be consistent on these things.
Mr Moore: Is it consistency, or are we going to see more duplicity?
MR SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Collaery: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that he withdraw that imputation.
Mr Moore: Are you going to vacate your office?
Mr Collaery: He is in one of his moods again, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Collaery. Mr Moore, I would ask you to withdraw that.
Mr Moore: "Duplicity"? Mr Speaker, there have been many examples where we have illustrated that Mr Collaery is duplicitous, but for the sake - - -
Mr Kaine: Mr Speaker, on a point of - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .