Page 3696 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Follett: I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr De Domenico has made exactly the same imputation that Mr Humphries earlier was asked to withdraw, which is that the Government's policy is based upon a donation to the party, and I would ask that he withdraw it.
Mr De Domenico: Speaking to that point of order, Madam Speaker: I made no such imputation. All I said was, and I quote again, that there is no doubt that there was an exchange of money between the X-rated video industry and the ACT ALP. There is no doubt about that, Ms Follett. I know that it might hurt you, and I know that you want to bury your face in the sand; but, notwithstanding that, there is no doubt - - -
Mr Lamont: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The Chief Minister has raised a point of order. Mr De Domenico, in trying to answer it, is debating the issue.
MADAM SPEAKER: The ruling on the previous point of order was that there could be no imputation that the Government's decision was based on any exchange of money. Mr De Domenico, you may proceed in full knowledge of that ruling.
MR DE DOMENICO: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your ruling, which I follow. There was no imputation, Madam Speaker. Obviously, from your ruling, you are satisfied that there was not. I will repeat that there is no doubt that money exchanged hands between the X-rated video industry and the ACT ALP. There is no doubt, so - - -
Mr Lamont: Madam Speaker, I rise to almost exactly the same point of order. The simple fact is that the imputation which Mr De Domenico is making - - -
Mr Kaine: There was no imputation.
Mr Lamont: There is an imputation. The imputation is that there was an exchange. What that exchange of money means - - -
Mr Kaine: Is the passing from one set of hands to another.
Mr Lamont: If the current Leader of the Opposition would sit there and listen, with Yap-yap in the background listening, he might also get educated a little bit. Saying that there has been an exchange implies that there has been a direct benefit for that exchange of money. That is the implication, and it is unfounded and unwarranted. I seek to have it withdrawn.
Mr Humphries: May I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker?
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Humphries.
Mr Humphries: Madam Speaker, if Mr Lamont says that we cannot state what is in fact on the record, as recorded by the Australian Electoral Commission, because it raises an imputation, then that would have extremely serious consequences. Mr De Domenico has simply said, and I have said, that there was an exchange of money between the Australian Labor Party and the pornographic industry in the ACT. It was a simple statement of that fact. That is an irrefutable fact. If Mr Lamont draws any inference from that, that is his concern, not the Assembly's.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .