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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2047 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety): Mr Speaker, under standing order 47, I seek to make an explanation. Mr Hargreaves said that I suggested in an answer to the Estimates Committee that the beat police were going to be based in police stations. If Mr Hargreaves looks carefully at what I said in the course of my answer, it was to his question, which was: "What is the basis for the costing of the beat police?" The costing of the beat police was based on them not having to meet any overheads like that, like separate accommodation. It did not mean that they were going to be based in police stations. The costing was based on that. I made it very clear from the very beginning, Mr Speaker, that the beat police would not be based in police stations. They would be based out on the beat, out in other places, if possible in shopping centres and things of that kind.

Mr Speaker, I also have to raise a matter of standing orders with respect to the use of names. Mr Hargreaves used a number of names in the course of that speech, directed towards me. I try not to be too sensitive about these things, but he used words like "idiot". I think the phrase "sanctimonious fool" was another one. I ask that that phrase be withdrawn, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr Hargreaves, would you-

Mr Hargreaves: Mr Speaker, as with Mr Moore, I do not recall the actual words, but if there has been phraseology which has offended-

Mr Moore: "Idiot".

Mr Hargreaves: I am happy to withdraw the word "idiot" because I do not need to say that. I am happy to withdraw it. If there were other words which have mortally offended the Attorney-General, I am happy to withdraw them as well.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

MR HARGREAVES (5.54): Mr Stanhope will no doubt speak to his amendment a little later on. I draw the Assembly's attention to the scrutiny of bills committee report on this issue. The report made a number of very valid points in respect of some areas of concern. One concern was that the levy of $30 or $50 could be regarded by some as a punishment-in other words, a fine. So we need to give some thought to the retrospective imposition of a fine which would be, in a sense, a double jeopardy, a double punishment.

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