Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 3882 ..

MR SPEAKER: I did not hear that he was actually saying that you had orchestrated an industrial campaign.

Mr Berry: The imputation is that we orchestrated an industrial campaign in the ACT which caused the Territory a great loss of funds - - -

MR DE DOMENICO: I can recall your conversation with Mr Brereton. I will table the letter that we tabled before, if you like.

Mr Berry: Is there a point of order or is there not, Mr Speaker? Are you going to rule our way or their way, or is that a silly question?

MR SPEAKER: I am sorry, but I did not hear Mr De Domenico say that the Labor Party had orchestrated an industrial campaign.

Ms Follett: On the point of order: I did hear it. Mr De Domenico said quite clearly that the industrial campaign had been orchestrated and, I think he said, backed as well by members opposite, pointing at the Labor members.

MR DE DOMENICO: Yes, it was.

Ms Follett: That is a clear imputation on all of the members opposite him and it ought to be withdrawn.

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I think that is an extremely difficult interpretation to make of what Mr De Domenico said. He referred to the fact that the Labor Party had backed the dispute. Clearly, they had. And "orchestrated", with respect, is hardly much different from "backed". It is all right to back it, but it is not all right to orchestrate it; is that the implication? If there is no implication to be drawn from backing the dispute, it seems to me that orchestrating it is no offence either. These are legitimate debating points, points that Mr De Domenico is entitled to make in the debate, and he should not have to withdraw them.

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Would you mind coming to a conclusion, Mr De Domenico. I want to say something about that later.

MR DE DOMENICO: I was just about to finish, Mr Speaker, before I was interrupted. Thank you for your protection.

Mr Kaine: And I have not asked my supplementary question yet.

MR DE DOMENICO: That is right. It is acknowledged, Mr Speaker, that the Chief Minister's annual accounts were submitted past the generally required due date. There is no doubt about that. However, the late submission was made with the formal approval of the Auditor-General as per standing procedures for late lodgment. It is important to have some perspective on the question of timing, Mr Speaker. There are two important issues. Firstly, the prolonged industrial dispute, as previously outlined, affected the Chief Minister's annual accounts like no other department's as a result of the central government ledger. Secondly, this matter was complicated by the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .