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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 276 ..

MS REILLY (5.38): I am glad that we are having this debate today. What a pity it is that there is not agreement across the board on this matter, because I think it is important. This debate is long overdue. I think it is good that we are bringing out into the open, through discussion in the Legislative Assembly, the fear and intimidation within the community organisations in this Territory. What we are talking about today is not a new matter. For about two years now I have been hearing stories about fear and intimidation and about community groups being frightened for their funding and about what is going to happen in the future. I have had direct experience of this when an organisation of which I was on the board had its funding threatened by a Minister of this Government. Other organisations that might have supported ACTCOSS were also informed that they should be careful about what they say.

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A very serious allegation has been made by Ms Reilly - that a Minister in the Government has threatened the funding of a particular organisation. That would be a fairly serious matter. Since there are only four or five of us who might be subject to such an accusation, I think it behoves her to detail that case. It is a matter of some importance, and I would hope she would mention who it was and table the evidence of it.

Mr Berry: There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. That is an abuse of the standing orders.

Mr Humphries: No; it is an allegation. Mr Speaker, it is unparliamentary to accuse a member of behaving improperly. To accuse a member of the ministry, effectively, of behaving in what would be, I think, a quite improper way - we would all agree with that - is unparliamentary. Therefore, it ought to be withdrawn or some substantiation of it ought to be offered.

Mr Berry: Absolute rubbish! Under what standing order?

Mr Humphries: No; I want to know who it was. Tell us about it.

Mr Berry: No; that is not a point of order, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Standing order 55 states:

All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

If the point of order is taken under standing order 55, then obviously the suggestion is highly disorderly. There is no point of order about the allegation that there is some sort of - what was the word you used, Mr Humphries?

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I said that to suggest that a member of the ministry has threatened a community organisation with a cut in funding is a suggestion of improper motives. It is absolutely an improper motive.

MR SPEAKER: Under standing order 55, I would have to uphold that point of order.

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