Page 4773 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 28 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Ms Follett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: may I refer you to page 79 of the proof copy of Hansard of 27 November and Mr Collaery's remarks there. He said:
Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that I do not take gifts whilst I am in office. And I suggest that she might be sensitive on that issue.
I say to you again that I regard that comment as unparliamentary, and I ask again that it be withdrawn.
Mr Collaery: You have already had a withdrawal of it. Why should we withdraw it twice? How absurd!
MR SPEAKER: Order! I do not believe that that was withdrawn, Mr Collaery.
Ms Follett: I do not have a withdrawal, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: No. On the words spoken, as I understood them, I did not think that was an offence; but, having seen it in print here, Mr Collaery, I would ask you to withdraw that.
Mr Collaery: I thought we had withdrawn it. I withdraw the imputation.
PUBLICATIONS CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1990
Speaker's Ruling
MR SPEAKER: This morning Mr Stevenson presented to the Assembly a private members' Bill entitled Publications Control (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1990. During the introductory proceedings I raised with Mr Stevenson the possibility that the Bill might contravene standing order 136. However, I indicated that I had not had the opportunity to consider the Bill in detail and would reserve my ruling until I had done so. When the Attorney-General rose to take the adjournment on the Bill he formally raised a point of order on the Bill's possible contravention of standing order 136.
I have since examined the Bill in detail and note that, as Mr Stevenson suggested, the Bill presented today does not include three clauses that were included in the Bill introduced and negatived at the agreement in principle stage earlier this year. The three clauses that were included in the first Bill largely sought to establish that it was an offence to be in possession of five X-rated videos. That provision, without the artificial limit of five, still exists in the Bill introduced today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .