Page 4842 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: What was the imputation, sir?
MR SPEAKER: By asking your question in the manner you did you implied that the action had come from Mr Humphries.
MR BERRY: No, sir, I did not. I think that is an inference that Mr Humphries has drawn - perhaps because he has a guilty conscience, I do not know. No such imputation could have been drawn unless one had a guilty conscience.
MR SPEAKER: I took that. Would you withdraw it, please?
MR BERRY: You have not been involved in this, sir; I would not have expected that you would have a guilty conscience.
MR SPEAKER: The words spoken are what I have to go on. Please withdraw the imputation.
MR BERRY: I withdraw any imputation that the Minister has been directly involved in the sacking of a journalist.
Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, that is a qualified withdrawal. He is still saying that there is some indirect involvement, and it is still worthy of being - - -
MR SPEAKER: An unqualified withdrawal, I think, is appropriate because the imputation is that through Mr Humphries - - -
MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, the Minister has made it clear that he was not directly involved, nor was he knowingly involved. I accept that.
Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I have to insist - - -
MR BERRY: What more do you want?
Mr Humphries: Mr Berry has been asked by you to give an unqualified withdrawal and will not do so. If he will not do so, you should name him.
MR BERRY: I withdraw any imputation against Mr Humphries.
Mr Humphries: Thank you.
MR BERRY: I now seek a short extension of time.
Leave not granted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .