Page 4841 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the point is that Mr Berry was clearly implying that the faxing of a letter from my office to the Canberra Times was connected - - -
MR SPEAKER: Mr Berry, please resume your seat.
Mr Berry: Another point of order. This is a frivolous point of order, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Berry, please resume your seat.
Mr Humphries: This is not a frivolous point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Berry's allegation is extremely serious. He said that the faxing of a letter from my office to the Canberra Times gave - Mr Speaker, may I ask him to resume his seat while I am making my point of order?
Mr Speaker, the implication is very clear that the faxing of the letter from my office gave rise to the - - -
Ms Follett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think this is a personal explanation, not a point of order.
Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, the crystal clear implication of Mr Berry's remarks was that the faxing of a letter from my office to the Canberra Times gave rise to the sacking of a journalist. I think it is a clear implication that I was involved.
Mr Berry: If the cap fits, wear it.
Mr Humphries: Mr Berry has now confirmed it; he says, "If the cap fits, wear it". He is clearly saying that I was responsible for that, and I ask him to withdraw.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Follett: I was going to say that it was a personal explanation, which I think it was.
MR SPEAKER: I will point this out again. If there is a substantive point of order to be raised, you are entitled to debate the point of order from both sides and from every member on the floor, if you wish.
MR BERRY: I seek a short extension of time.
MR SPEAKER: Before we go on, I certainly believe that there was an imputation in the words that you have now explained. I would ask you to withdraw that imputation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .