Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2007 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 2 May 2007) . . Page.. 836 ..

Mr Pratt: Yes, please.

MR SPEAKER: Cease interjecting.

MR STANHOPE: I do not know whether Mr Stefaniak is aware of any magic in September, but the suggestion in the discussion we had today was that the Mulcahy move will occur before September, assuming that the industrial relations commission has that little difficulty of the Australian Hotels Association report out of the way and Mr Mulcahy comes clean on his credit card usage. We understand that the Leader of the Opposition has no issue with the credit card usage, in that he has expressed full confidence in Mr Mulcahy and the Australian Hotels Association.

Mrs Dunne: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: this is an abuse of your rulings on matters that are before courts and tribunals. This is a live matter and is the third time in two days that the Chief Minister has ventured into that area, despite your ruling. Could you please reinforce your ruling on sub judice?

MR STANHOPE: The sub judice rule does not apply to this.

MR SPEAKER: I have ruled on this matter many times and asked members to be cautious in making claims about matters which are before tribunals. I have to keep in mind the influence these things might have over the respective tribunals. A cheeky aside in the Assembly is not likely to influence the tribunal in question, in my view.

Mrs Dunne: On the point of order: there is a difference between a cheeky aside and something which is part and parcel of the Hansard in an answer in response to a question upon notice. There is a difference. A cheeky aside may not appear in the Hansard, but an answer to a question upon notice will. There is a fundamental difference.

MR SPEAKER: I still ask members to desist. It is not helpful to this parliament or to any process of a tribunal for politicians to be pre-empting what a tribunal might find on a matter. References which draw any imputations about the outcome of particular court matters or matters which are before tribunals should not be made. Chief Minister, have you finished?

MR STANHOPE: I have concluded, although there is much more I would like to say. Out of respect, I will not.

MR SESELJA: Chief Minister, have you reprimanded Mr Hargreaves and Mr Corbell for their public dispute?

MR STANHOPE: I am not quite sure what the question alludes to. I cannot answer it. What is he talking about?

Cabinet solidarity

MR PRATT: My question is to the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, last year we saw Mr Corbell and Ms Gallagher breach cabinet solidarity by voting against school

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .