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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1524 ..

Mr Hargreaves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: there is no such ruling. I want that remark withdrawn from the record.

MR SPEAKER: Just settle down. We are going to be here a long time tonight.

Mr Hargreaves: We will be unless that is withdrawn, Mr Speaker.

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, when Mr Hargreaves used the original words in presenting the report some weeks ago I asked that they be withdrawn and they were withdrawn.

Mr Hargreaves: They were not withdrawn.

Mr Humphries: Now whether you encouraged him to withdraw them, I can't recall, Mr Speaker. Whether he did it off his own bat or whether you made him do it, I don't recall. I make no reflection on that without checking Hansard. Mr Speaker, the fact is that the comments were unparliamentary. Standing orders 54 and 55 are extremely clear, and if any comments ever made have fallen within standing orders 54 and 55 these are such words. The words impute that I have perverted my duty to consider matters fairly and impartially because of views I hold on some extraneous matter, in a way which is quite improper. That is the clear inference of those words.

I will quote-no, I won't quote the words because I would be doing the same thing. You read the words, Mr Speaker, and it is absolutely abundantly clear. Mr Berry has quoted those words and clearly that adopts those sentiments and puts them on the record in a way that can be quoted. Indeed, Mr Speaker, this is not a mere matter of conjecture. This morning these words were effectively summarised in a report on ABC radio from a report which has not been published yet by this Assembly. So I am not merely suggesting that these words might be used: they have been used. I ask, therefore, that they be withdrawn in accordance with standing orders 54 and 55.

Mr Stanhope: Just on the point of order: I am not quite sure how it actually rates as a point of order, but I think the point that Mr Hargreaves made does need to be repeated, Mr Speaker, for your benefit. In making it, he referred to an unedited proof Hansard of exactly what he did say, and Mr Humphries then, in his subsequent comments, simply ignored everything that Mr Hargreaves had just said, which is on the record. Mr Humphries made assertions that were not true, saying that Mr Hargreaves had alleged that he, Mr Humphries, was corrupt or had in some way perverted the duty that he owed to members of the community. Mr Hargreaves did not allege these things, but, in a spirit of conciliation, as many of us have in relation to these matters, stood up and withdrew any suggestion that he had inferred that any member of this place was corrupt or had perverted his duty. Mr Hargreaves then went on to say, and I am quoting from Hansard:

That is what Mr Hargreaves said when this matter was raised previously. He withdrew any suggestion that any member was corrupt or had perverted his duty, but he did not resile from his dissenting report. It is clear. It is on the record. Mr Berry has read from a report tabled in this place. To suggest that he is not entitled to do that, to suggest that

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