Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1922 ..
Mr Moore: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, standing order 62 says this:
Having called the attention of the Assembly to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition of the Member's own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate,-
it does not say in this debate; it says in debate-
the Speaker may direct the Member to cease speaking.
Mr Corbell just indicated that it was the Assembly's will. I am just clarifying for him that, no, it is the Speaker's prerogative to rule on matters.
Mr Berry: Mr Moore, Mr Humphries, Mr Smyth.
MR SPEAKER: Put that down, Mr Berry. You know that signs are not allowed in this place.
MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, may I continue my remarks?
Mr Moore: If they are not tedious and repetitive.
Mr Hargreaves: He was not talking to you. He was asking the Speaker.
MR CORBELL: I am asking the Speaker. May I continue my remarks, Mr Speaker?
MR SPEAKER: I am sorry but my advice is that we have recommitted this question. If we are here until 4 o'clock in the morning, then so be it.
MR CORBELL: So we have, Mr Speaker, very clearly, an inference that pressure was applied on a witness. House of Representatives Practice states that that constitutes a breach of privilege. As I said earlier when we first put this question to the Assembly, the point that we made in raising this matter is not to determine whether or not there has been a breach of privilege. That is not the question. The question is that it appears that there may have been a breach of privilege and it should be investigated as a possible breach of privilege.
Mr Humphries' amendment does not ask the standing committee on urban services to consider it as a possible breach of privilege. The inquiry is quite different from the one proposed by me. Members should be clear on that. It is not an inquiry into a breach of privilege as proposed by me.
Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne have both said that they believe it is simply a matter of who inquires. It is not. The amendment moved by Mr Humphries changes the nature of the inquiry as well as where the inquiry takes place. So it is not as straightforward as both Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke pointed out in their comments in an earlier debate today.
Mr Speaker, the fact is that this is a possible breach of privilege. No reasonable reading of House of Representatives Practice can determine otherwise. Because it is an apparent
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .