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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1536 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

been dealt with otherwise. We do need to consider those freedoms very seriously and clearly, and Mr Berry should be allowed the opportunity to have the standing orders suspended to permit him to do as he wishes.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, I think you did identify those words.

Mr Berry: No, he did not.

Mr Humphries: Yes, Mr Speaker. I might just-

Mr Stanhope: Never.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Berry: Which words?

Mr Humphries: I did, Mr Speaker. Yes.

MR SPEAKER: You did. I think you did.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (6.24): Mr Speaker, this is just being pigheaded. You have outlined a path forward. You have said that you want a withdrawal and then, if the issue is to be rejoined, the correct way, as outlined by standing orders, is through a substantive motion. The point here is this: if somebody writes a dissenting report and in it says that another member beats his wife, that member cannot defend himself. If somebody then comes into this place and reads onto the record that another member beats his wife, it becomes public and can be used.

Mr Humphries is saying that there is something untrue in what has been said in the dissenting report. The Assembly adjourned the previous discussion and the Assembly can rejoin that discussion. You, Mr Speaker, have given the path forward for how it should be done in a proper manner.

This is just theatre. This is typical Mr Berry. This is black is white because Wayne said so; this is white is black because Wayne said so. We can argue the toss as long as you like, but you, Mr Speaker, have made a determination on how it can go forward in an appropriate manner. The man should withdraw.

MR OSBORNE (6.26): Mr Speaker, I think you identified a very clear path for Mr Berry. He stood up and bleated about being gagged, but I think, as Mr Moore indicated, he did not hear the first part of your ruling. Also, Mr Speaker, the debate which was adjourned on Tuesday by Mr Humphries will give Mr Berry an opportunity once again to speak to this issue.

I have to say though that I thought the way Mr Berry read into Hansard the extract from that report was pretty low. I am a party to the allegation and I found it offensive. I had discussions with Mr Hargreaves about his intention to write that link with me. When you read that extract from the dissenting report it is very clear that the Attorney-General is not the only person identified.

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