Page 382 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 15 February 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Conflict of interest matters are determined by this house, by way of a substantive motion.
Mrs Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The previous question asked the Chief Minister whether he thought he had a conflict of interest. You did not consider that that was unruly—
MR SPEAKER: It was a question that the Chief Minister could answer.
Mrs Dunne: and the question Mr Stefaniak asked was, “How can you say that you don’t have a conflict of interest?”
MR SPEAKER: Well, I think that is closer to an accusation than asking him whether he thinks he has a conflict of interest. I think there is an accusation in it, and to accuse people of having a conflict of interest is disorderly. In any event, if you want to reword the question I am happy for you to put it again.
MR STEFANIAK: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that; I will reword it. Attorney, how can you say the point that you have just said in relation to the Coroners Act, especially section 57, given the provisions of that act and the fact that legal practitioners of over 20 years standing do believe that there is a conflict of interest situation in that?
MR STANHOPE: I cannot speak for unnamed legal practitioners of 20 years experience. I must say that I am always amused by those who stand up in this place and say: “I know a legal practitioner of 20 years standing. I’m not going to say who he is. I’m not going to tell you who this legal practitioner of 20 years standing is. But he’s got this opinion.” Actually, the opinion is worth as much as the name that you just gave to him, Mr Stefaniak. Anonymous opinions from anonymous people but of 20 years standing—by gee, that is impressive! An anonymous, unnamed, unknown legal practitioner mate of Bill Stefaniak’s from the law school!
Members interjecting—
MR STANHOPE: Actually, is it you, Bill?
Mr Stefaniak: No, practitioners—plural.
MR STANHOPE: “An unnamed legal practitioner of 20 years standing, namely, I, Bill Stefaniak, one-time attorney-general but non-believer in justice, think that there is a conflict of interest here, so you had better take this seriously.” Is he from the ACT?
Mr Smyth: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under standing order 118 (b) the minister is not entitled to debate it; he simply has to answer the question. He is debating it.
MR SPEAKER: Come to the point of the question, Chief Minister.
MR STANHOPE: The point of the question is that the shadow Attorney-General asserts that he has got a mate, who happens to have a law degree—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .