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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2128 ..

MR SPEAKER

(continuing):

I am not going to rule the amendment out of order, but I think it is very close to one of those two points, Mr Berry. I will leave it up to the Assembly to make-

MR

BERRY (12.13): Thank you for your wise comments, Mr Speaker. I move:

Add the following words "whether the comments were true or not.".

I have moved the amendment principally to make the point that this is about the Assembly interfering in the committee process in the grossest way. It is open to members in this Assembly to move a substantive motion, in a form that they might choose, to deal with matters that reflect badly on members in this place. It is quite open for them to do so in respect of any comments that a member might make concerning due process. But if you value the committee process as you say you do, you would be very wary about seeking this level of interference in respect of committee reports. For example, if this amendment were to be passed, my reading of it is that the report would have to include some reference to the amendment.

Mr

Humphries: No it wouldn't.

MR

BERRY: Mr Humphries, that makes me feel a little more comfortable. But a motion in this place would then reflect, one way or another, the words that were in the report.

Let me leave the words in the report for the moment. Ms Tucker raised some very wise points. She quite correctly drew attention to a report released just yesterday which said some fairly strong things about members of the estimates committee. It is possible that we might, in retrospect, think that we should move an amendment similar to that of Mr Humphries' in relation to the words which were used by Mr Hird in his dissenting report.

Mr

Humphries: You are entitled to move an amendment.

MR

BERRY: I would not presume to do so because I do not think it is appropriate.

Mr

Humphries: It would not suit your case, would it?

MR

BERRY: It would suit my case because it would expose the stupidity of this particular amendment. If all I wanted to do in this place was expose your stupidity, Mr Humphries, I could be kept busy enough. But that is not what I am here for. I am here to represent constituents.

In his dissenting report, Mr Hargreaves said:

I suspect that these reductions reflect the personal commitment of the Attorney General and certain members of the Standing Committee to de-fund those activities ...

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