Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2015 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 February 2015) . . Page.. 434 ..
MR HANSON: I do not have the specific words from yesterday’s debate, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Corbell has part of a point. I will review the transcript. I will ask members to be careful. This a substantive motion calling for an inquiry into a particular issue, and Mr Hanson has been addressing that fairly tightly. I will review Hansard and come back with a consideration on the matter raised by Mr Corbell.
MR HANSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Many questions are left unanswered, and if an example of that is needed I refer members to the Chief Minister’s extraordinarily evasive answers yesterday to the very simple question of when he was first informed of this breach of law. His answer was:
… the same time as other members of the community.
He was then asked for a specific date and again he repeated:
At the same time as other members of the community.
He was then asked when the community found out, and his response was:
That is something I cannot answer.
Madam Speaker, we were all here; we all heard those answers. It was bizarre. It was deliberately evasive, and I ask the question: why did the Chief Minister not answer that very simple and straightforward question? What is there to hide? This goes to the point—if the Chief Minister will not answer such a simple question in the Assembly, it is no wonder that the community, sections of the media and the opposition are calling for an inquiry. If there is nothing to hide, if this minister has done nothing wrong, as stated by those opposite, this is the opportunity to establish that. Denial, avoiding questions, attacking the opposition and attacking the media are not adequate responses. The failure to conduct a full and independent inquiry would be a failure in leadership by the Chief Minister, Andrew Barr. It would certainly fail Menslink.
Mr Corbell: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Stop the clock, please.
Mr Corbell: Madam Speaker, you have repeatedly ruled that members should refer to members by their proper titles. Once again Mr Hanson is using language like “Andrew Barr”, “Simon Corbell” et cetera. You have ruled that it is “Mr Barr” or “Chief Minister”, and I ask you to draw Mr Hanson’s attention to that.
MADAM SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order and—
MR HANSON: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I said, “the Chief Minister, Andrew Barr”. I used his proper title and his full name. I seek your ruling on that.