Page 4831 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that the respective positions of the parties were clear and understood and that we would have a debate about it. The document, which goes into the detail of our opposition, could have been made available. I think it was disappointing that Mr Collaery chose to direct a personal attack at me. I would say that anyone who reads the Hansard debate will make up their own mind as to who has been acting appropriately.
MR COLLAERY: I seek leave under standing order 46 to clarify that issue.
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you claim to have been misrepresented?
MR COLLAERY: Yes.
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.
MR COLLAERY: I do not want to detain the house, other than to say that the record will show who made the first slight in today's proceedings. In any event, Mr Connolly did indeed have a document in his hand; he did indeed flick it. I did not read one word, other than recognise from a distance a signature of an officer, and there was a remark made about that. Mr Connolly did not proffer the document to me, as I said. There was a half-hearted attempt to get out of an embarrassing situation that I thought he was in because Mr Stefaniak was in the process of offering it to me.
Mr Connolly: Did you ask to read it?
MR COLLAERY: The point I made, not to labour it, is: If this Attorney had any collegiate regard, why would I have to be in a position of becoming a supplicant? He makes it available to Mr Stefaniak; why does he not make it available to me in a collegiate legal sense? That is the point I made. I do not believe that he has put the entire complexion to that incident.
TRADING HOURS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Debate resumed from 11 September 1989, on motion by Mr Humphries:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (4.18): I rise to speak in opposition to this Bill, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. Looking at the speech made by Mr Humphries in relation to the matter, I was particularly drawn to his comments, reported on page 3173 of Hansard of 11 September 1991, with reference to the ACIL report. He said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .