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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1525 ..

Mr Stanhope (continuing):

our freedom of speech, as members in this place, could be curtailed in such a way as to prevent Mr Berry from reading aloud from a report tabled in this place, is an extreme proposition that the Attorney-General is putting.

What are we suggesting? That Mr Berry can read under his breath from a report tabled in this place, but he cannot read aloud from a report tabled in this place? That is a simple nonsense. To suggest that our freedoms as members of this place, as representatives of the people of Canberra, can be curtailed to the extent that we cannot read from reports tabled in this place really is an extreme inhibition on our freedoms.

MR SPEAKER: I read from House of Representatives Practice, page 475:

Mr Berry: There is nothing unparliamentary in the words.

Mr Hargreaves: There was no ruling on that.

Mr Humphries: It's a quotation.

Mr Berry: The words weren't unparliamentary.

Mr Humphries: They are unparliamentary. His ruling says they were defamatory.

Mr Hargreaves: There is no ruling.

Mr Humphries: There might not be a ruling but they are, nonetheless, unparliamentary.

Ms Tucker: Which bit is unparliamentary?

Mr Hargreaves: What's unparliamentary?

Mr Humphries: The bit that says that I was corrupt. That is the part that is unparliamentary.

Mr Hargreaves: You said you were corrupt. You said it.

Ms Tucker: It doesn't say you were corrupt.

Mr Humphries: No, no; it was a summary of what you were saying.

Mr Hargreaves: You said it.

Mr Stanhope: You said it and Mr Hargreaves withdrew any suggestion that he had said it.

Mr Hargreaves: You said it or I'd pull back your implication.

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