Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1535 ..
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (6.21): Mr Speaker, I think it would be a grave disservice for Mr Berry to be banished from the house on the basis of imputations that he has allegedly made against the Attorney when there has been no suggestion of the precise words that are unparliamentary or disorderly or offensive. Mr Speaker, one thing that I would ask you to consider is identifying those words, or those parts of the statement that Mr Berry made in the first instance, that are unparliamentary.
Mr Moore: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not the matter under debate. The suspension of standing orders is the matter under debate.
MR STANHOPE: Yes. What do you think I am addressing? What did you talk about?
Mr Moore: The suspension of standing orders.
MR STANHOPE: You went on and on about what Mr Berry had said or had not said. The point I am raising is that none of us actually know what particular words, what precise words, Mr Berry is being accused of having used that are unparliamentary or are disorderly.
Mr Moore: That is why he puts in a substantive motion. That is why he does it in a substantive motion.
MR STANHOPE: Not at all. He cannot be asked to move a substantive motion. He does not wish to pursue this matter. The other issue is that Mr Berry does not wish to pursue a motion against the Attorney or to take the matter any further. What Mr Berry did was refer to and read from a document tabled in this house, and refer to a matter which could have been disposed of earlier this week if the Attorney had not chosen to adjourn it. We are in a situation here where we are arguing about an alternative way of proceeding with the matter. Earlier, Mr Speaker, you said there were two options here. One was to propose a substantive motion if he wished to pursue the matter-Mr Berry has no matter that he wishes to pursue any further-or to remove so-called unparliamentary or disorderly words.
In justice, the unparliamentary or disorderly words need to be identified. We need to know exactly what they are. I have perused again the dissenting report and I am not quite clear on what it is that is offensive or unparliamentary in the words that were used.
Mr Humphries: None so blind as those who will not see.
MR STANHOPE: What are the precise words? Is it suggested that he withdraw everything he said? Or just a couple of the words? Or one paragraph?
Mr Humphries: The indented paragraphs will be fine, thank you.
MR STANHOPE
: Mr Humphries, perhaps you need to stand and explain what are the precise words that you have taken such exception to. I think it is important that we at least clarify that. The basic issue here really does go back to the right of a member of this place to refer to a document that has been tabled in this place. The matter could have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .