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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2129 ..


MR

SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw. You are not allowed to do that.

MR

BERRY: I withdraw. I refer to the words which have been found to be particularly offensive by Mr Humphries and which are contained in the dissenting report. Can I say that?

MR

SPEAKER: Yes, you may.

MR

BERRY: As long as I am not required to-

MR

SPEAKER: Do not quote them.

MR

BERRY: As long as I am not required to say that Gary is on the right track here.

Mr

Humphries: We would not hear you say it that way, so don't worry about it.

MR

BERRY: I might be required to withdraw it because other members thought I was terribly wrong and I was committing some sort of great offence against the committee process.

Mr Speaker, whether or not you agree with those words is quite irrelevant. What is very important is the right of members to make contributions to the committee process. Members who vote for Mr Humphries' amendment ought to reflect on the future and what might be said about their strong words as committee members. We could have a situation where the majority of the Assembly are heaping scorn, by virtue of the standing orders of this place, on the members of a committee. I do not think that is a process that we should engage in without kicking up a bit of a struggle to prevent it happening.

Mr Speaker, leaving aside the content, there is no justification for this Assembly to interfere so grossly in the committee process. If you take this step, it means that every time somebody is offended by something that is said in a committee report it is open to them to put this sort of amendment forward to salve one's hurt personal feelings or something along those lines.

If Mr Humphries so desperately needs to have his personal position repaired because of the words which appear in this report then I suggest that he should go and have a cup of tea or something. That would be far more positive than imposing this sort of standard or this possibility on future and, indeed, past considerations of Assembly members. I just think it is an unwise and appalling approach to these sorts of things.

I know that Mr Humphries is offended by the words that are contained in the dissenting report, and I think there are a lot of people in the community that have had the same suspicions. I am one of them; I hold the same suspicions. But I cannot, for the life of me, be found to have offended the standing orders of this Assembly because I hold the same suspicions that thousands of other people in the community, and Mr Hargreaves, hold. When has it become an offence under the standing orders for a member of a committee to hold suspicions about certain things? Members of committees come from the non-executive area and from time to time their words will be included in the work of committees.


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