Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2928 ..

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, it is.

MR SPEAKER: Order! I uphold Mr Humphries's point of order.

MR BERRY: That is outrageous. You did not even hear me debate this.

MR SPEAKER: Just a moment. You did mention, Mr Berry, the Labor Party. The point is that if you wish to stand and make a personal explanation as a member of the Labor Party you should identify the fact that you are making it personally. That is perfectly in order and I will allow that, but you cannot make it - - -

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation pursuant to standing order 46.

MR SPEAKER: Yes.

MR BERRY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I felt affronted by the accusation by Mr Humphries that I had some different agenda in relation to China and nuclear weapons. Mr Speaker, I will restore people's faith in history. Mr Humphries tried to spin the web of deception and change it. Mr Speaker, I read from Hansard at page 1554. This is what I said:

I think that what the Chinese are doing is outrageous, but I am saying that there is a strong campaign against the French at this point. They are bombing a colony which they have established in the South Pacific. It is quite different to what the Chinese are doing. It is quite different in the sense that there is not a community uprising about the Chinese. I believe that there will be, and I will be right behind it and so will the Labor Party. I think it is outrageous.

That should clear the matter up, Mr Speaker.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General): Mr Speaker, I also seek leave to make a statement under standing order 46.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Humphries.

Ms McRae: Are you sure it is a personal explanation?

MR HUMPHRIES: Absolutely. Absolutely, Mr Speaker. Mr Berry, who earlier today misjudged even the location of China by about 2,000 kilometres, neglects to mention that what I said on the floor of the chamber was that there was no motion or action by the Labor Party against Chinese products. He was happy to mention in passing that he did not like what the Chinese were doing, but he wanted to ban the purchase of French products, but not of Chinese products. That was the point I made for debate.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .