Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (14 October) . . Page.. 3193 ..
MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, I am responding to Mr Humphries' attack on Mr Stanhope when he talked about the income that Mr Stanhope receives for his contribution to his duties to the Assembly. I was merely drawing - - -
MR SPEAKER: It is not relevant.
MR BERRY: It was for Mr Humphries and it ought to be for me.
MR SPEAKER: I cannot comment on that. I am telling you that your comments are not relevant. Please address the issue.
MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, it is as relevant for Mr Stanhope to follow the course that he has followed in relation to this committee as it was for the Attorney-General to avoid doing his duty in relation to the occupational health and safety matter.
MR SPEAKER: That is not relevant, Mr Berry. Please, we have a motion before the house.
MR BERRY: Yes, indeed, to extend the period available to this committee to deal with the business in front of it. If we had to extend the period for Mr Humphries to carry out the duties that he has in front of him, we would need till the end of time. I said earlier in this debate that, if we want to do a comparative work value case, I would be glad to do the one on Mr Humphries. I would have no difficulty doing it at all. He is the Minister - - -
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Berry, I would remind you of the motion before the house.
MR BERRY: Indeed.
MR SPEAKER: Please, this is not a wide-ranging debate.
MR BERRY: I am afraid, Mr Speaker, that it has turned into one and it is only fair for one to respond in the same terms as the attack that has been levelled by the Minister. I am not finished yet.
Ms Carnell: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is disrespect for the Speaker, which, under House of Representatives Practice, is not acceptable.
MR SPEAKER: Yes. I am growing a little tired of this.
MR BERRY: You have not been there long.
MR SPEAKER: No, but I have been here long enough.
Mr Moore: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, that is another example.