Page 4325 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: No.
Ms Follett: You have heard him withdraw.
MR BERRY: I have withdrawn.
MR SPEAKER: I think you are still putting forward the proposition that a member of this parliament is victimising a member of the public service.
MR BERRY: No, I withdrew that.
MR SPEAKER: That is the inference that I - - -
MR BERRY: He is attempting to discredit his report.
MR SPEAKER: Order! If you have not done that, then please withdraw.
MR BERRY: I will say this: This member is attempting to discredit the report of a Government Service officer, or a former Government Service officer. That Government Service officer was involved in the Save Our Schools campaign. In my view, questions have to be asked about Mr Humphries' motives.
Mr Humphries: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: He is clearly repeating that allegation, and I ask you to either have him withdraw or name him.
MR BERRY: I withdraw, Mr Speaker, and then say that the Liberals are attempting to discredit the report of this officer. This officer was involved in the Save Our Schools campaign, and questions have to be asked about the Liberals' performance.
Mr Humphries: Can I ask you to name him, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Berry, you do not apparently understand that if you want to raise an allegation of such a serious matter you need to do it as a substantive motion. If you are not prepared to do that, I would ask you to withdraw unqualifiedly.
MR BERRY: I have withdrawn it, Mr Speaker.
Ms Follett: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Could I ask exactly what it is that you wish withdrawn. I have heard Mr Berry withdraw three times the implication that Mr Humphries victimised an officer.
Mr Humphries: Can I answer that, Mr Speaker, or make a point?
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Humphries.
Mr Humphries: On a point of order: The inference - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .