Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (2 July) . . Page.. 2096 ..
MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, there can be no comparison between those circumstances and the circumstances in relation to the judiciary with which Mr Humphries tries to compare them.
Mr Hird: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. When someone raises a point of order I thought it was courtesy for other members to resume their seat.
MR SPEAKER: Well, get on with it. We will be here all day.
Mr Hird: Sir, I draw your attention to standing order 62. I ask you to take the appropriate action in respect of Mr Berry, and also use standing order 202, if you would.
MR SPEAKER: Tedious repetition, Mr Berry, is dealt with in standing order 62.
MR BERRY: My problem was that I was not allowed to repeat myself. Mr Speaker, let me go back to the issue. Mr Humphries tried to draw a comparison between the behaviour of the judiciary in managing its affairs with the behaviour of the Chief Minister in managing the financial affairs of the Territory. The court of this Assembly spoke on Wednesday in relation to that matter. That court reflected badly on the Chief Minister's performance and censured her. It is as simple as that.
Mr Humphries: But it was because of inadvertence. That is the point.
MR BERRY: I say, Mr Speaker, that evidence of intent, motive and advantage was clearly made out. The Government is still stinging from this, and I hope that each time that there is a piece of legislation - - -
MR SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.
MR BERRY: Well, I do not know that I had a time limit on my speech, but I am happy to conclude there, Mr Speaker. This is a silly argument introduced by - - -
MR SPEAKER: Thank you. The member's time has expired.
MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Community Safety and Minister Assisting the Treasurer): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I will make this very short statement to rebut what has just been said. The Assembly voted not on a motion of no confidence, but on a motion of censure. The motion of censure was based on the deciding vote of Mr Rugendyke. Mr Rugendyke told the Assembly he had not found sufficient evidence to satisfy him that there was intent on the Chief Minister's part to break the law. He was certainly satisfied that there was a mismanagement of the matter, that the Government had broken the law, and that the Chief Minister was responsible for that breach of the law.
Mr Quinlan: Go back to the mismanagement bit.