Page 6101 - Week 18 - Thursday, 12 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, we are aware that the Canberra Times is in possession of a copy of the report. It might be an early draft, but it is in possession of a copy of that report. That is before it gets to this house. That is an absolutely disgraceful position. Mrs Grassby, who is a member of the committee, did not even have a copy of the final report before the Canberra Times got hold of a copy, and still does not have a copy of it. Mr Speaker, I point those issues out to the house because I think members treated this issue too lightly in refusing to consider it earlier. I think they ought to review their position. It is a serious matter for this Assembly. It is one that Mr Humphries ought to be ashamed of. He at least should apologise, but in due course I think the house should consider it necessary to censure him.
MR HUMPHRIES (7.02): To hear Mr Berry say that anybody should apologise for having misled the house is high-handed in the extreme.
Mr Berry: Did you give it to the Canberra Times? Did you report it to WIN Television?
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Berry, you were heard in silence.
MR HUMPHRIES: This is the member who last year misled the Assembly on the question of - - -
Mr Berry: I take a point of order.
MR HUMPHRIES: It is a fact; he was censured by the house for it.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Berry, yes; going back in history is hardly relevant to the issue.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, he was censured by the house for having misled the house.
MR SPEAKER: I am not debating that point. What I am drawing your attention to is the relevance to this debate of going back in history.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, Mr Berry has argued that I should apologise to the house. I point out that, when he misled the house, despite the fact that there was not a shred of evidence to support his position he did not even attempt to apologise to the house. Quite frankly, I think that I am not in a position to do so either at the moment. Mr Speaker, the standing orders to which Mr Berry has referred clearly emphasise standing order 241 at the expense of standing order 242, which says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .