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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 4 Hansard (2 April) . . Page.. 1237 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

replace it with a statutory authority. There was no imputation at all. These were just statements of fact.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Everybody should cool down a bit. Mr Stefaniak, if you have a problem with what the Chief Minister has said about you in particular, you have the option to rise to your feet, pursuant to standing order 46, and seek my leave to make a statement on personal matters. I would not rule in your favour on the issue of imputation. Do you want to raise another point?

Mr Stefaniak: I did not refer specifically to personal reflections, Mr Speaker; I spoke of improper motions. He has said again, imputing an improper motive to the opposition, that we wish to see Mr Hollway sacked. We have had the substantive debate in this Assembly, which was that that group of people would be simply transposed to what Mrs Dunne has introduced. He has continued to misrepresent that and is imputing improper motives to the opposition. He is blatantly wrong and continues to maintain that position. That is, I think, very close to imputing an improper motive, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Whether your motives about Mr Hollway are proper or improper is a matter for debate and is not one that I can resolve. I would not regard it as imputing an improper motive if somebody were to say that you had introduced certain legislation which might bring about certain events. Those are matters of fact that cannot be avoided, it seems to me.

Mrs Burke: We wouldn't say, "Sack him."

MR SPEAKER: I heard the interjection from Mrs Burke and it assists me. If we were to place a total ban on that sort of language in this place, lots of people here would not have much to say. I am not going to rule in your favour, Mr Stefaniak. I do not think that he imputed improper motives to you personally. Therefore, I will not rule in your favour.

MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, I will let the matter go, but I do know what Mr Snow thinks about the prospect of being sacked. I will go to the next attack, the attack on Mr McLeod, the ex-Commonwealth and ACT Ombudsman, who is conducting an administrative inquiry on behalf of the ACT government into all those issues around the bushfire. It is but one of the inquiries, I have to say, but he is conducting an administrative inquiry into a range of issues around the bushfire.

Mr Smyth: Oh, it now an administrative inquiry.

MR STANHOPE: We have always said that. It is not judicial; it is an administrative inquiry. That is how it has always been titled. You might even find that in its terms of reference, but you have probably not bothered to look at those. You are more interested in overcoming the relevance deficit-"deficit"is probably a kind word-that you are suffering.

Mr Wood: Deprivation.

MR STANHOPE: No, it is kind. I does not actually go to the expanse of the deprivation that the poor old Leader of the Opposition is suffering at the moment in relation to his

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