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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1490 ..

Mr Rugendyke: On the point of order, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker: The only inference that can be drawn by listeners to the speech of Mr Corbell when he mentioned a comparison between sworn statements under the Statutory Declarations Act and the statements of other people tabled in this house earlier today is that those tabled statements that have not been sworn to are untruthful. I would ask that Mr Corbell be called on to substantiate that untruthfulness or withdraw.

MR CORBELL: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order. I hope at some stage you are going to rule on this frivolous point of order - - -

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to. If you sit down I will rule on it.

Mr Berry: You have nothing to rule on.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Berry, come to order.

MR CORBELL: Very briefly, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: The inference other members draw is not one that I can control. The point I was making in the debate was that the two statutory declarations tabled during the debate today were made by people who made them on the understanding of what it meant to make a declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act. I drew to the attention of the house that the other statements tabled during the debate were not made under the provisions of that Act.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order raised by the Attorney-General, Mr Humphries: The Chair did not hear any reference whatsoever to the term "liar", so I cannot and will not uphold the point of order raised by the Attorney-General on this occasion. However, I am conscious of the protection of those who cannot defend themselves in this place and I ask all members in the house to be very careful in the way that they approach this debate.

MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. (Extension of time granted) I think my colleagues today have been very clear in making the points about the nature of the issues which have led us to believe that we can no longer have confidence in this Attorney-General. There has been, as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, a systemic approach to the counsel representing the Bender family and, we argue, a systemic deliberate and partisan effort, where he must be the most non-partisan of all individuals, to undermine the credibility of that representation. For that he should not receive the support of this house. He should not have the confidence of this chamber, and I urge members to support the motion.

MR RUGENDYKE (4.24): I think at the start of this speech it is important to pick up on one of the words used by Mr Kaine as a reason for supporting this motion today, and that is the word "dignity". Mr Kaine said that he was seeking dignity and justice for the Bender family. I cannot see how dragging this charade through this place once again is in any way showing any concern for the dignity of the Bender family.

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