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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (8 August) . . Page.. 2575 ..

MR SPEAKER: Indeed.

Mr Stanhope: I am taking a point of order. I am asking the minister will he table any documentation which substantiates his claim that financiers are basing their decision in relation to the Lyneham tennis centre on the views of the Labor Party. Which financier and where is he?

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Mr Moore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Stanhope has been warned once. He uses the tactic of taking a point of order that is not a point of order. It is a normal tactic the Labor Party uses when they do these things. For somebody who has been warned, that must be really pushing their luck.

Mr Stanhope: That point of order was entirely spurious, Mr Speaker. It was a challenge to your authority, suggesting that you do not know what you are doing and that you need the wisdom of the political genius in this place in order to do your own job. Mr Moore stands up and suggests that my taking a point of order is disruptive. It is no more disruptive than him taking a point of order on it.

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order in either case. Go on, please, minister.

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, the advice I have is as of 31 July 2001. The developer was finalising the finance arrangements. The understanding I have been given is that the funds will be available during the week commencing 13 August 2001.

Mr Moore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did not wish to interrupt the answer. That is why I waited. My point of order was under standing order 61 which states that a member may not interrupt another member whilst speaking unless to call attention to a point of order. The point I was making under standing order 61 is that a Labor Party tactic is to pretend to call a point of order when there is no point of order. Therefore they are inconsistent with standing order 61. That was the point of order I raised, and it was, indeed, a point of order.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you. Do you have a supplementary question?

MR CORBELL: It was a point of order according to Michael Moore. My supplementary question is: will the minister now apologise for misleading the Assembly insofar as he attempted to claim that creditors will be paid and were being paid when in fact they have not been?

Mr Moore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: imputations must be dealt with in a substantive motion. If he is talking about misleading the house, it has to be substantive. Therefore the question is out of order.

MR SPEAKER: There is an imputation there.

MR CORBELL: I withdraw the imputation.

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