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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 1351 ..

Mr Kaine: Mr Speaker, I could understand why the Minister would take offence. Knowing the circumstances, which stand for themselves, I withdraw the words, but the Minister knows what I mean.

MR SPEAKER: I would remind you, Mr - - -

Mr Moore: A point of order, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: No, I am sorry.

Mr Moore: This is about imputation. The imputation still stands. Mr Kaine has to withdraw the imputation, not in any qualified way. He has to withdraw the imputation.

MR SPEAKER: Please, Mr Kaine.

Mr Kaine: Mr Speaker, I withdraw the words, as I said, but I repeat that the Minister knows what I meant.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you.

Mr Moore: No. He still has not withdrawn the imputation. He has to do it, Mr Speaker, or he ought to be named.

Mr Kaine: Are you saying that the Minister does not know what I meant?

Mr Moore: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Kaine has made a clear imputation. He has not withdrawn that imputation. That is what the issue is about. He needs to withdraw it, or he needs to be named, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: If you could just withdraw it unequivocally that would settle the matter and we could get on with question time.

Mr Kaine: Mr Speaker, the Minister makes a distinction between the documents and what they contain. I am making a distinction between an imputation and the words. What is the difference?

MR SPEAKER: Just please - - -

Mr Moore: No. Withdraw the imputation or be named.

MR SPEAKER: Just withdraw, Mr Kaine, please. We can get on with question time.

Mr Kaine: Mr Speaker, in deference to you, I withdraw the words.

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