Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2661 ..
I just want to make a couple of points. We gave Mr Smyth leave to speak again and he went into some obfuscation that really has no relationship at all to what this debate is about. Further, the coroner's report and the sub judice issue were not part of my conversation or part of anything that I have been outlining. This is just not relevant. It may well be a firm statement to make, but I did not make it.
Maybe I can wrap up the debate-I cannot guarantee that this will be the case-on this amendment. Mrs Dunne made the point that I have been making. As she was about to ask for an extension of time she said that generally speaking questions asked at committee meetings are answered. She said that for the most part they are answered. That is rather what I have been saying, on good advice.
MR SPEAKER: The question is that Mr Smyth's amendment be agreed to.
Ms Tucker: Mr Speaker, under standing order 133, I ask that the question be divided.
Ordered that the question be divided.
That line (1A) be agreed to.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
That paragraph (a) be agreed to.
The bells being rung-
Mr Stanhope: I'll be looking forward to those subpoenaed telephone records, crossbenchers. I'll be looking forward to those subpoenaed telephone records of telephone calls in the middle of the night. I wonder whose office it will come from or whose mobile telephone it will come from, when we get the subpoenaed telephone records? From the hypocrites that sit on the crossbenches? What hypocrisy! Let's inquire into it ourselves. Dreadful hypocrisy!
Mrs Cross: Mr Speaker, is the Chief Minister allowed to say "hypocrite"? Can he withdraw that. I understand that is an imputation. He has just impugned the whole crossbench. He should withdraw that.
MR SPEAKER: "Hypocrite"has been ruled out before, so Chief Minister, will you withdraw that?
Mr Stanhope: It was a very general accusation, Mr Speaker, but I will withdraw that.