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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2693 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: That is what the caretaker convention says, Mr Speaker, and I did.

I do not believe that the words of Mr Stanhope in his letter of 12 October demonstrate that he was remaining neutral on the issue. Mr Stanhope was saying to me, "When are you going to make the payment?" I think that justifies my description in the terms in the press release I issued yesterday.

I conclude by noting that Mr Brown, the widower of the plaintiff in the matter, has been in the media this week. He has been extremely critical of the ACT government.

Mr Quinlan: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Humphries is going beyond the topic at hand. He is now arguing the merits-

MR HUMPHRIES: It is not a standing order 46 explanation.

MR SPEAKER: We are in some difficulty, Mr Quinlan, because the Assembly has given Mr Humphries leave to speak.

MR HUMPHRIES: That is right-on the subject. I am talking still about the Brown matter.

MR SPEAKER: I just raise again the issue of sub judice and warn you to be very cautious.

MR HUMPHRIES: I will be very careful about that matter, Mr Speaker. I simply note that Mr Brown is extremely critical of the ACT government.

Mr Stanhope: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. That goes to the matter of the appeal.

MR HUMPHRIES: You are taking the point of order now?

Mr Stanhope: Yes, I am-to finish this garbage.

MR SPEAKER: I think when you talk about what Mr Brown is about to say or might have perhaps said, it may well go to the issues that will come to the notice of the courts. I will rule that that could be a sub judice matter, and I repeat my request to you to be cautious about the language you choose in relation to the matter.

MR HUMPHRIES: I am a lawyer, Mr Speaker, and I know how the rule works, but I accept your ruling. Since I cannot make reference to Mr Brown and his views today about the ACT government, then I will not-at least not in the chamber. But I will say this for the record: I support the idea of there being an appeal against the decision, because I believe the decision was wrong.

I listened to the advice of the Government Solicitor. I took that view at the time, and I was prepared to stand by that view at the time-unlike the Chief Minister, who in opposition said one thing and in government a different thing altogether. That, to me, adds up to hypocrisy.

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