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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 235 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, in the circumstances, it seems to me that the information presented by Mr Moore was not totally accurate, in Tuesday's instance, and was incomplete, in Wednesday's instance. Maybe he needs to go back to his source and ensure that his source does not make unsubstantiated allegations which simply serve to attack the integrity of a member of the task force who may, I understand, have a long-running neighbourly dispute with the person who may be his source.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement under standing order 47. In fact, I now have an extra piece of information to add to where I have been misunderstood, misquoted and misrepresented. Mr Speaker, the first issue is that Mr Humphries, in answering questions about the Gungahlin Development Authority, said something to the effect that "we all decided that that was what we were going to pass into law". In fact, I am looking at the minutes of proceedings, No. 57, of 26 June 1996. The question - that this Bill be agreed to in principle - was put, and the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Greens party voted for that legislation. But the Independents, with their independence of thought, realising that this would cause trouble and was inappropriate, voted no, foreseeing trouble. So, there was an inaccuracy there.

Mr Humphries talked about inaccuracies in my question. Mr Speaker, I concede that I may have suggested four offences. If that was the case, I apologise for that minor inaccuracy. My information is not from a near neighbour of Mr Hyles's, to the best of my knowledge. I would also like to say, Mr Speaker, that the duplicity of Mr Humphries surprises me. To say, on the one hand, that he could not possibly remove somebody for that sort of reason - I can see what you are going to say, Mr Speaker, so I will save this for a later debate.

MR SPEAKER: I think you should.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to make a personal explanation under standing order 46.

MR SPEAKER: Proceed.

Mr Humphries: The usual thing!

Mrs Carnell: We could put it on the notice paper.

MR WHITECROSS: As long as you keep misrepresenting people, Mrs Carnell, I will keep getting up. Mr Speaker, in answer to a question from Mrs Littlewood, Mrs Carnell misrepresented me, just as she did yesterday. Mrs Carnell said in answer to the question that the papers I tabled yesterday contained an attack on the integrity and hard work of public servants within her department. Mr Speaker, Mrs Carnell's claim is false. I was critical in one of the documents that I tabled. I was critical of Mrs Carnell. I was critical of Mrs Carnell for two reasons. One was that she had - - -

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