Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2122 ..
MR HARGREAVES
(continuing):that the budget process should not be a vehicle for members to pursue individual vendettas. If the minister was offended by such a suggestion, then methinks that perhaps he protesteth too much. I say this because the minister has not at any stage denied anything that I have said I suspected-and I reiterate the word "suspected"-to be the case.
Let us authorise this report for publication and be done with it. Any further comments that I may have about asking the minister to give us good reason why the Assembly should be denied this publication are now probably redundant because I note that the minister has signalled the government's intention to support the motion.
I would like to see some resolution of the question of the need to have any report authorised by a motion. This ought to be automatic. There are opportunities for this Assembly to sanction its members if it does not like what is being said. The Assembly will do so at any time it feels like it, and I would not interfere with that process for a second. But those sorts of things ought not have a detrimental effect on the committee office or the secretariat. It is absolutely imperative that we consider what protections are given to those support officers.
When I have said something in this chamber that has offended somebody and it can be demonstrated that this is the case, my track record will show that I have withdrawn the remark fairly quickly. I am happy to do that so long as the objection can be sustained. But the question of defamation ought not hang over the committee office for months and months, as has happened in this case. I would urge the government and the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure to give some thought to that.
Mr
Berry: Mr Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order in relation to the amendment which has been moved by Mr Humphries. This amendment anticipates a ruling from the Speaker in respect of the standing orders of this Assembly. Mr Speaker, I would ask you to rule on whether or not amendments to motions or motions in this house can anticipate a ruling of the Speaker in respect of certain matters. In particular, the Speaker will not be able to make a ruling in respect of this matter-that is, the inclusion of certain words in a report.Mr
Osborne: He has already ruled it out of order.Mr
Berry: I hear Mr Osborne interjecting that he has already ruled it out of order. No, he has not because it is not open to the Speaker to rule the words in the report out of order. So I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that Mr Humphries' amendment anticipates a ruling from you in respect of matters which can never come before you.Mr
Humphries: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: extremely similar comments were made on the floor of this Assembly on a previous occasion by Mr Hargreaves. He reiterated the same comments in not exactly identical words but very similar words.Mr
Berry: There you go-see, you admit it.MR
SPEAKER: I am getting very tired of this. This is a storm in a teacup.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .