Page 534 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: It took you a week to realise that there was a problem.
MR BERRY: No; come on. It is an important enough issue to allow the parties to try to settle it and use their best will to settle the matter. Let them get on with it.
Lake Burley Griffin - Motor Boats
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to Mr Wood as Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning. Are there moves to extend approval for motor boats on Lake Burley Griffin and, if so, will a formal environmental impact study be done rather than allowing incremental degradation by stealth?
MR WOOD: That is a nice form of words with lots of implications, Madam Speaker. I think this is the sort of thing that could be approached more reasonably. I am not aware of any proposals to allow greater use of motor vessels on the lake. I have an inclination that would not facilitate or not permit that, should the question arise, though I would listen to any case that is presented before making decisions. But I note what you say and I will bear your views in mind.
Ms Follett: I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper, Madam Speaker.
UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Statement by Speaker
MADAM SPEAKER: Before we proceed I would like to make a statement. During the proceedings of the Assembly last week there was some discussion concerning possible imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on members. The standing orders include particular provisions concerning the use of offensive and disorderly words and personal reflections and the Speaker's duty to intervene when they are used. It is when members are canvassing the opinions or conduct of their peers that these standing orders have particular significance.
The practice I intend to follow in instances such as arose on Tuesday last is that it would not be appropriate for me to prevent a member from simply questioning the veracity of a statement made by another member. To prohibit members from stating that another member was wrong or that a statement made by another member was factually inaccurate could unduly inhibit debate in the Assembly. Members must be able to refute claims or statements they believe are wrong, either in debate or by way of a personal explanation.
I will, however, intervene when a member is accused of deliberately or knowingly misleading the Assembly, or of lying, or when there is a serious reflection on a member's character or motives. A charge of uttering a deliberate falsehood is a serious one indeed, and such a charge may be directed only upon a substantive motion which allows a distinct vote of the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .