Page 4335 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is why he did not, because he cannot, because there is nothing in this press release that is inconsistent with what I said in the chamber when I moved the motion, when I had my opening address and when I closed the debate. He did not take a single line or quote from the supposedly offensive press release, the press release that referred to the Chief Minister being referred to a privileges committee.
It is a very serious matter. You can see the politics and you have to ask: “What political genius in the Labor Party thought this up? Who over there said, ‘Let us censure Mr Smyth so that we can put the Chief Minister and the privileges committee back on the front page so that people can again question what has the Chief Minister been up to’”? What genius, what strategist, thought this little baby up?
There is no substance to the motion for censure here today. What did I say in the debate that is inconsistent with the motion moved? I am the father of the motion. I am not going to apologise for moving the motion, which the majority of the Assembly supported. And what did the motion say? A committee be established to examine whether there was improper interference with the free exercise of the committee, improper interference by the Chief Minister.
One can assume from what Mr Barr is saying that improper interference with a committee is not improper conduct and, therefore, must be proper conduct. That is what he is saying. Improper interference now equates to proper actions by the Chief Minister, whereas what I said in the press release was “Gallagher to be examined”. I did not say she would be found guilty. I did not say she was guilty of it. I said “Gallagher to be examined for improper conduct”. I will quote from my press release, which he could not, which he would not, which he did not. He either did not prepare or he did not think about it. He does not have the case.
Members interjecting—
Dr Bourke: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
MR SMYTH: That is the problem with this motion today.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, one moment, thank you. Stop the clocks, thank you. Dr Bourke.
Dr Bourke: Mr Speaker, you have already warned the members present regarding interjections. How long are you going to keep warning or are you going to do something about it?
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Dr Bourke. I think we will take points of order in a slightly different form in the future. I think that there is a recognised difference between members interjecting over their own members and against other members, and at this point I see no point of order. Mr Smyth, you have the floor.
MR SMYTH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What political giant thought this up? What mental giant thought this little stunt up? I am amazed that the government would want
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video