Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 12 Hansard (28 October) . . Page.. 5267..
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Members of the opposition will desist. Otherwise some of them will cop a warning.
MR CORBELL: Now that he has got that list, he cannot use that as an argument any more; so now we hear the truth. The truth is that he does not like Mr Hull. But he has not given us any reason why he does not like Mr Hull. We have got this confected reason that Mr Hull has some conflict of interest. What is the conflict of interest?
Mr Hanson: He writes for the Canberra Times.
MR CORBELL: He writes for the Canberra Times. He writes for the Canberra Times as a freelance writer and gets the occasional payment from the Canberra Times. How is that a conflict of interest? He is not employed by the Canberra Times in any permanent role. He gets paid for pieces of work that he provides to the Canberra Times, but how is that a conflict of interest? Does it really affect him?
Does the payment he receives affect whether or not the Canberra Times gets advertising from the ACT government? Is the Liberal Party seriously suggesting that because he writes for the Canberra Times he is able to in some way influence whether or not the Canberra Times gets advertising material? And even if he could, is that to his direct benefit? Or is that even to his indirect benefit? It is not to his benefit, positive or negative. How is it to his benefit? What conflict of interest arises? There is no conflict of interest. It is a confected excuse on the part of the Liberal Party to make unworkable a piece of legislation that they demanded should be in place.
Mr Seselja made it one of his great champion reforms. "I am going to introduce this piece of legislation."And now Mr Seselja is the only person in this place that is making the legislation unworkable. He is a hypocrite.
Mr Seselja: On a point of order, I think that is out of order.
MR CORBELL: I withdraw the comment.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Corbell has withdrawn the comment. Mrs Dunne, your point of order?
Mrs Dunne: Mr Assistant Speaker, in relation to unparliamentary language, I would like you to advise Mr Corbell about the appropriateness of deliberately making a comment and withdrawing it in the next sentence. It was not a slip of the tongue. It was a deliberate thing that he did, knowing that he would have to withdraw. This is quite inappropriate. I think you should bring Mr Corbell to order on this matter.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: On the point of order, Mr Corbell?
MR CORBELL: No, I have nothing to add in relation to the point of order.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, it is my view that propriety is in the hands of the members and the members need to consider their own conduct when