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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1532 ..

MR SPEAKER: Please.

Mr Berry: Are you ordering? I want to make sure.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, I am. If you wish to follow it through later on, you may do so.

Mr Berry: I seek leave to move dissent from your ruling.

Leave not granted.

MR BERRY (6.12): Okay. Well, three days will do. We will keep it on the record. Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Moore: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that this is in blatant disregard of standing order 202 (e). Mr Berry is persistently and wilfully disregarding the authority of the chair. I believe he should be named.

Mr Corbell: He can move dissent from the ruling. You know that.

Mr Moore: I am taking a point of order.

Mr Corbell: There is a question before the chair.

Mr Moore: It is simply a tactic. Mr Speaker has already ruled.

Mr Corbell: We are dissenting from his ruling.

MR SPEAKER: Are you seeking to suspend standing orders?

MR BERRY: I have moved a motion, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: You are moving that so much of standing orders be suspended-

MR BERRY: As would prevent me from doing so, and I will speak to the motion to suspend standing orders, if I may, Mr Speaker?

MR SPEAKER: You may.

MR BERRY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The first point that was made in relation to this was from Mr Humphries. He drew, as the turning point or the fundamental point, on words that were supposed to have been uttered by Mr Hargreaves in relation to words which were included in Mr Hargreaves' dissenting report in the justice committee's report in relation to the budget. He said that Mr Hargreaves had used these words and had been ordered to withdraw them. Mr Speaker, that was untrue because Mr Hargreaves had never used these words and had never been asked to withdraw them, and Mr Humphries-

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