❓ Question regarding alteration of Hansard record concerning the involvement of the parliamentary inspector in the Chairman's speech to ICAC. The answer deflects, accuses the questioner of impropriety, and defends the speech's authorship.
AnsweredQoN 659Legislative Assembly
Asked
20 October 2005
Member
QuestionView source ↗
Under standing order 75(4) my question is to the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. As an administrative matter, I refer to the answer provided by the chairman last week to this Parliament regarding the involvement of the parliamentary inspector, Mr Malcolm McCusker, QC, in the preparation of his speech to the Independent Commission Against Corruption in Sydney. I quote from the videotape recording of the chairman’s answer in this chamber - He, - That is, the parliamentary inspector - in fact, wrote most sections of it. (1) Why did the chairman request Hansard to change the wording of his answer to read instead - He, in fact, wrote most of the detailed section of it. (2) Why did the chairman want to alter the official record of his answer in such a significant and substantive way? (3) Did the parliamentary inspector write most of the chairman’s speech, as claimed by the chairman in this house last week or not? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It appears that the content of the question relates to something that was answered in this chamber. That does not necessarily relate to the member’s position as the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. I also point out to the house something of which Mr Speaker is also very aware. This is a matter that has been set down for debate on a motion for which notice has been given by the member for Nedlands. As such, I am not sure whether it fits within standing orders as a question to be asked of the member for Perth. The SPEAKER : I listened very carefully to the member for Nedlands’ question. It conforms to the standing orders of this house. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Once again, the premise of the member’s question is wrong. The official Hansard became available on Monday this week. I am somewhat alarmed that the member or a member of the Liberal Party has been hawking copies of the daily Hansard in this house. That is a serious issue that should be reported to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I informed Mr Speaker and the commissioner and the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission on Monday when I became aware that the member or someone attached to her had been trying to beat up incorrect information in the media from the question and answer contained in Hansard . The question from the member contains false premises. Rather than embarrass the member for Nedlands by pointing out her ignorance of committee procedures - for example, the enabling motion that Assembly committees pass for a four-year term unless rescinded, which authorises the chair to be the only spokesperson for the committee - last Thursday I attempted to politely and charitably inform the member of the process in this instance. I also resisted the urge to respond to her in the partisan way in which the question was asked, mindful that the JSCCCC has always acted in a bipartisan way. The member tried her diversionary stunt this morning - she must admit that it was a stunt - to take away focus from the Leader of the Opposition having misled this house yesterday. When she did that, I checked with a Liberal Party member on my committee and asked whether that person had raised an issue with the member for Nedlands. I asked whether there was something he wanted raised. He said no. The Liberal Party member in the other house had no idea that the member was going to pull that stunt today. Last Thursday, when I thought that I politely rebutted her assertion that the parliamentary inspector and committee members had no idea that I was speaking at the conference in Sydney, I was perhaps overly humble in understating that I write my own speeches. Clearly, in the supplementary answer, I thought that I had clarified this. I wish to clearly state right now that it was my own speech with verbatim technical information only on dates and chronology provided to me by the parliamentary inspector and Commissioner Hammond for accuracy only. They were provided, as I replied to the member, in dot point form by the inspector. The member has informed us this morning that she has been down with Richard Nixon listening to tapes. I do not know whether, when the member was with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she was on stress leave at the time when they did the training on listening to tapes. I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I make two points. The first is that the member for Perth is misleading the house. The second is that ambient noise has meant that large parts of his answer have been inaudible. I ask him to repeat his comments in their entirety. The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
As an administrative matter, I refer to the answer provided by the chairman last week to this Parliament regarding the involvement of the parliamentary inspector, Mr Malcolm McCusker, QC, in the preparation of his speech to the Independent Commission Against Corruption in Sydney. I quote from the videotape recording of the chairman’s answer in this chamber - He, - That is, the parliamentary inspector - in fact, wrote most sections of it. (1) Why did the chairman request Hansard to change the wording of his answer to read instead - He, in fact, wrote most of the detailed section of it. (2) Why did the chairman want to alter the official record of his answer in such a significant and substantive way? (3) Did the parliamentary inspector write most of the chairman’s speech, as claimed by the chairman in this house last week or not? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It appears that the content of the question relates to something that was answered in this chamber. That does not necessarily relate to the member’s position as the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. I also point out to the house something of which Mr Speaker is also very aware. This is a matter that has been set down for debate on a motion for which notice has been given by the member for Nedlands. As such, I am not sure whether it fits within standing orders as a question to be asked of the member for Perth. The SPEAKER : I listened very carefully to the member for Nedlands’ question. It conforms to the standing orders of this house. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE replied: (1)-(3) Once again, the premise of the member’s question is wrong. The official Hansard became available on Monday this week. I am somewhat alarmed that the member or a member of the Liberal Party has been hawking copies of the daily Hansard in this house. That is a serious issue that should be reported to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I informed Mr Speaker and the commissioner and the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission on Monday when I became aware that the member or someone attached to her had been trying to beat up incorrect information in the media from the question and answer contained in Hansard . The question from the member contains false premises. Rather than embarrass the member for Nedlands by pointing out her ignorance of committee procedures - for example, the enabling motion that Assembly committees pass for a four-year term unless rescinded, which authorises the chair to be the only spokesperson for the committee - last Thursday I attempted to politely and charitably inform the member of the process in this instance. I also resisted the urge to respond to her in the partisan way in which the question was asked, mindful that the JSCCCC has always acted in a bipartisan way. The member tried her diversionary stunt this morning - she must admit that it was a stunt - to take away focus from the Leader of the Opposition having misled this house yesterday. When she did that, I checked with a Liberal Party member on my committee and asked whether that person had raised an issue with the member for Nedlands. I asked whether there was something he wanted raised. He said no. The Liberal Party member in the other house had no idea that the member was going to pull that stunt today. Last Thursday, when I thought that I politely rebutted her assertion that the parliamentary inspector and committee members had no idea that I was speaking at the conference in Sydney, I was perhaps overly humble in understating that I write my own speeches. Clearly, in the supplementary answer, I thought that I had clarified this. I wish to clearly state right now that it was my own speech with verbatim technical information only on dates and chronology provided to me by the parliamentary inspector and Commissioner Hammond for accuracy only. They were provided, as I replied to the member, in dot point form by the inspector. The member has informed us this morning that she has been down with Richard Nixon listening to tapes. I do not know whether, when the member was with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she was on stress leave at the time when they did the training on listening to tapes. I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I make two points. The first is that the member for Perth is misleading the house. The second is that ambient noise has meant that large parts of his answer have been inaudible. I ask him to repeat his comments in their entirety. The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
(3) Did the parliamentary inspector write most of the chairman’s speech, as claimed by the chairman in this house last week or not? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It appears that the content of the question relates to something that was answered in this chamber. That does not necessarily relate to the member’s position as the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. I also point out to the house something of which Mr Speaker is also very aware. This is a matter that has been set down for debate on a motion for which notice has been given by the member for Nedlands. As such, I am not sure whether it fits within standing orders as a question to be asked of the member for Perth. The SPEAKER : I listened very carefully to the member for Nedlands’ question. It conforms to the standing orders of this house. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE replied: (1)-(3) Once again, the premise of the member’s question is wrong. The official Hansard became available on Monday this week. I am somewhat alarmed that the member or a member of the Liberal Party has been hawking copies of the daily Hansard in this house. That is a serious issue that should be reported to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I informed Mr Speaker and the commissioner and the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission on Monday when I became aware that the member or someone attached to her had been trying to beat up incorrect information in the media from the question and answer contained in Hansard . The question from the member contains false premises. Rather than embarrass the member for Nedlands by pointing out her ignorance of committee procedures - for example, the enabling motion that Assembly committees pass for a four-year term unless rescinded, which authorises the chair to be the only spokesperson for the committee - last Thursday I attempted to politely and charitably inform the member of the process in this instance. I also resisted the urge to respond to her in the partisan way in which the question was asked, mindful that the JSCCCC has always acted in a bipartisan way. The member tried her diversionary stunt this morning - she must admit that it was a stunt - to take away focus from the Leader of the Opposition having misled this house yesterday. When she did that, I checked with a Liberal Party member on my committee and asked whether that person had raised an issue with the member for Nedlands. I asked whether there was something he wanted raised. He said no. The Liberal Party member in the other house had no idea that the member was going to pull that stunt today. Last Thursday, when I thought that I politely rebutted her assertion that the parliamentary inspector and committee members had no idea that I was speaking at the conference in Sydney, I was perhaps overly humble in understating that I write my own speeches. Clearly, in the supplementary answer, I thought that I had clarified this. I wish to clearly state right now that it was my own speech with verbatim technical information only on dates and chronology provided to me by the parliamentary inspector and Commissioner Hammond for accuracy only. They were provided, as I replied to the member, in dot point form by the inspector. The member has informed us this morning that she has been down with Richard Nixon listening to tapes. I do not know whether, when the member was with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she was on stress leave at the time when they did the training on listening to tapes. I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I make two points. The first is that the member for Perth is misleading the house. The second is that ambient noise has meant that large parts of his answer have been inaudible. I ask him to repeat his comments in their entirety. The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
The SPEAKER : I listened very carefully to the member for Nedlands’ question. It conforms to the standing orders of this house. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE replied: (1)-(3) Once again, the premise of the member’s question is wrong. The official Hansard became available on Monday this week. I am somewhat alarmed that the member or a member of the Liberal Party has been hawking copies of the daily Hansard in this house. That is a serious issue that should be reported to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I informed Mr Speaker and the commissioner and the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission on Monday when I became aware that the member or someone attached to her had been trying to beat up incorrect information in the media from the question and answer contained in Hansard . The question from the member contains false premises. Rather than embarrass the member for Nedlands by pointing out her ignorance of committee procedures - for example, the enabling motion that Assembly committees pass for a four-year term unless rescinded, which authorises the chair to be the only spokesperson for the committee - last Thursday I attempted to politely and charitably inform the member of the process in this instance. I also resisted the urge to respond to her in the partisan way in which the question was asked, mindful that the JSCCCC has always acted in a bipartisan way. The member tried her diversionary stunt this morning - she must admit that it was a stunt - to take away focus from the Leader of the Opposition having misled this house yesterday. When she did that, I checked with a Liberal Party member on my committee and asked whether that person had raised an issue with the member for Nedlands. I asked whether there was something he wanted raised. He said no. The Liberal Party member in the other house had no idea that the member was going to pull that stunt today. Last Thursday, when I thought that I politely rebutted her assertion that the parliamentary inspector and committee members had no idea that I was speaking at the conference in Sydney, I was perhaps overly humble in understating that I write my own speeches. Clearly, in the supplementary answer, I thought that I had clarified this. I wish to clearly state right now that it was my own speech with verbatim technical information only on dates and chronology provided to me by the parliamentary inspector and Commissioner Hammond for accuracy only. They were provided, as I replied to the member, in dot point form by the inspector. The member has informed us this morning that she has been down with Richard Nixon listening to tapes. I do not know whether, when the member was with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she was on stress leave at the time when they did the training on listening to tapes. I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I make two points. The first is that the member for Perth is misleading the house. The second is that ambient noise has meant that large parts of his answer have been inaudible. I ask him to repeat his comments in their entirety. The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
(1)-(3) Once again, the premise of the member’s question is wrong. The official Hansard became available on Monday this week. I am somewhat alarmed that the member or a member of the Liberal Party has been hawking copies of the daily Hansard in this house. That is a serious issue that should be reported to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I informed Mr Speaker and the commissioner and the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission on Monday when I became aware that the member or someone attached to her had been trying to beat up incorrect information in the media from the question and answer contained in Hansard . The question from the member contains false premises. Rather than embarrass the member for Nedlands by pointing out her ignorance of committee procedures - for example, the enabling motion that Assembly committees pass for a four-year term unless rescinded, which authorises the chair to be the only spokesperson for the committee - last Thursday I attempted to politely and charitably inform the member of the process in this instance. I also resisted the urge to respond to her in the partisan way in which the question was asked, mindful that the JSCCCC has always acted in a bipartisan way. The member tried her diversionary stunt this morning - she must admit that it was a stunt - to take away focus from the Leader of the Opposition having misled this house yesterday. When she did that, I checked with a Liberal Party member on my committee and asked whether that person had raised an issue with the member for Nedlands. I asked whether there was something he wanted raised. He said no. The Liberal Party member in the other house had no idea that the member was going to pull that stunt today. Last Thursday, when I thought that I politely rebutted her assertion that the parliamentary inspector and committee members had no idea that I was speaking at the conference in Sydney, I was perhaps overly humble in understating that I write my own speeches. Clearly, in the supplementary answer, I thought that I had clarified this. I wish to clearly state right now that it was my own speech with verbatim technical information only on dates and chronology provided to me by the parliamentary inspector and Commissioner Hammond for accuracy only. They were provided, as I replied to the member, in dot point form by the inspector. The member has informed us this morning that she has been down with Richard Nixon listening to tapes. I do not know whether, when the member was with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she was on stress leave at the time when they did the training on listening to tapes. I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I make two points. The first is that the member for Perth is misleading the house. The second is that ambient noise has meant that large parts of his answer have been inaudible. I ask him to repeat his comments in their entirety. The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
Last Thursday, when I thought that I politely rebutted her assertion that the parliamentary inspector and committee members had no idea that I was speaking at the conference in Sydney, I was perhaps overly humble in understating that I write my own speeches. Clearly, in the supplementary answer, I thought that I had clarified this. I wish to clearly state right now that it was my own speech with verbatim technical information only on dates and chronology provided to me by the parliamentary inspector and Commissioner Hammond for accuracy only. They were provided, as I replied to the member, in dot point form by the inspector. The member has informed us this morning that she has been down with Richard Nixon listening to tapes. I do not know whether, when the member was with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she was on stress leave at the time when they did the training on listening to tapes. I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact -
I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact -
If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact -
The SPEAKER : Order! Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I make two points. The first is that the member for Perth is misleading the house. The second is that ambient noise has meant that large parts of his answer have been inaudible. I ask him to repeat his comments in their entirety. The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
As an administrative matter, I refer to the answer provided by the chairman last week to this Parliament regarding the involvement of the parliamentary inspector, Mr Malcolm McCusker, QC, in the preparation of his speech to the Independent Commission Against Corruption in Sydney. I quote from the videotape recording of the chairman’s answer in this chamber - He, - That is, the parliamentary inspector - in fact, wrote most sections of it. (1) Why did the chairman request Hansard to change the wording of his answer to read instead - He, in fact, wrote most of the detailed section of it. (2) Why did the chairman want to alter the official record of his answer in such a significant and substantive way? (3) Did the parliamentary inspector write most of the chairman’s speech, as claimed by the chairman in this house last week or not? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It appears that the content of the question relates to something that was answered in this chamber. That does not necessarily relate to the member’s position as the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. I also point out to the house something of which Mr Speaker is also very aware. This is a matter that has been set down for debate on a motion for which notice has been given by the member for Nedlands. As such, I am not sure whether it fits within standing orders as a question to be asked of the member for Perth. The SPEAKER : I listened very carefully to the member for Nedlands’ question. It conforms to the standing orders of this house. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE replied: (1)-(3) Once again, the premise of the member’s question is wrong. The official Hansard became available on Monday this week. I am somewhat alarmed that the member or a member of the Liberal Party has been hawking copies of the daily Hansard in this house. That is a serious issue that should be reported to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I informed Mr Speaker and the commissioner and the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission on Monday when I became aware that the member or someone attached to her had been trying to beat up incorrect information in the media from the question and answer contained in Hansard . The question from the member contains false premises. Rather than embarrass the member for Nedlands by pointing out her ignorance of committee procedures - for example, the enabling motion that Assembly committees pass for a four-year term unless rescinded, which authorises the chair to be the only spokesperson for the committee - last Thursday I attempted to politely and charitably inform the member of the process in this instance. I also resisted the urge to respond to her in the partisan way in which the question was asked, mindful that the JSCCCC has always acted in a bipartisan way. The member tried her diversionary stunt this morning - she must admit that it was a stunt - to take away focus from the Leader of the Opposition having misled this house yesterday. When she did that, I checked with a Liberal Party member on my committee and asked whether that person had raised an issue with the member for Nedlands. I asked whether there was something he wanted raised. He said no. The Liberal Party member in the other house had no idea that the member was going to pull that stunt today. Last Thursday, when I thought that I politely rebutted her assertion that the parliamentary inspector and committee members had no idea that I was speaking at the conference in Sydney, I was perhaps overly humble in understating that I write my own speeches. Clearly, in the supplementary answer, I thought that I had clarified this. I wish to clearly state right now that it was my own speech with verbatim technical information only on dates and chronology provided to me by the parliamentary inspector and Commissioner Hammond for accuracy only. They were provided, as I replied to the member, in dot point form by the inspector. The member has informed us this morning that she has been down with Richard Nixon listening to tapes. I do not know whether, when the member was with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she was on stress leave at the time when they did the training on listening to tapes. I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I make two points. The first is that the member for Perth is misleading the house. The second is that ambient noise has meant that large parts of his answer have been inaudible. I ask him to repeat his comments in their entirety. The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
(3) Did the parliamentary inspector write most of the chairman’s speech, as claimed by the chairman in this house last week or not? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : It appears that the content of the question relates to something that was answered in this chamber. That does not necessarily relate to the member’s position as the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. I also point out to the house something of which Mr Speaker is also very aware. This is a matter that has been set down for debate on a motion for which notice has been given by the member for Nedlands. As such, I am not sure whether it fits within standing orders as a question to be asked of the member for Perth. The SPEAKER : I listened very carefully to the member for Nedlands’ question. It conforms to the standing orders of this house. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE replied: (1)-(3) Once again, the premise of the member’s question is wrong. The official Hansard became available on Monday this week. I am somewhat alarmed that the member or a member of the Liberal Party has been hawking copies of the daily Hansard in this house. That is a serious issue that should be reported to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I informed Mr Speaker and the commissioner and the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission on Monday when I became aware that the member or someone attached to her had been trying to beat up incorrect information in the media from the question and answer contained in Hansard . The question from the member contains false premises. Rather than embarrass the member for Nedlands by pointing out her ignorance of committee procedures - for example, the enabling motion that Assembly committees pass for a four-year term unless rescinded, which authorises the chair to be the only spokesperson for the committee - last Thursday I attempted to politely and charitably inform the member of the process in this instance. I also resisted the urge to respond to her in the partisan way in which the question was asked, mindful that the JSCCCC has always acted in a bipartisan way. The member tried her diversionary stunt this morning - she must admit that it was a stunt - to take away focus from the Leader of the Opposition having misled this house yesterday. When she did that, I checked with a Liberal Party member on my committee and asked whether that person had raised an issue with the member for Nedlands. I asked whether there was something he wanted raised. He said no. The Liberal Party member in the other house had no idea that the member was going to pull that stunt today. Last Thursday, when I thought that I politely rebutted her assertion that the parliamentary inspector and committee members had no idea that I was speaking at the conference in Sydney, I was perhaps overly humble in understating that I write my own speeches. Clearly, in the supplementary answer, I thought that I had clarified this. I wish to clearly state right now that it was my own speech with verbatim technical information only on dates and chronology provided to me by the parliamentary inspector and Commissioner Hammond for accuracy only. They were provided, as I replied to the member, in dot point form by the inspector. The member has informed us this morning that she has been down with Richard Nixon listening to tapes. I do not know whether, when the member was with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she was on stress leave at the time when they did the training on listening to tapes. I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I make two points. The first is that the member for Perth is misleading the house. The second is that ambient noise has meant that large parts of his answer have been inaudible. I ask him to repeat his comments in their entirety. The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
The SPEAKER : I listened very carefully to the member for Nedlands’ question. It conforms to the standing orders of this house. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE replied: (1)-(3) Once again, the premise of the member’s question is wrong. The official Hansard became available on Monday this week. I am somewhat alarmed that the member or a member of the Liberal Party has been hawking copies of the daily Hansard in this house. That is a serious issue that should be reported to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I informed Mr Speaker and the commissioner and the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission on Monday when I became aware that the member or someone attached to her had been trying to beat up incorrect information in the media from the question and answer contained in Hansard . The question from the member contains false premises. Rather than embarrass the member for Nedlands by pointing out her ignorance of committee procedures - for example, the enabling motion that Assembly committees pass for a four-year term unless rescinded, which authorises the chair to be the only spokesperson for the committee - last Thursday I attempted to politely and charitably inform the member of the process in this instance. I also resisted the urge to respond to her in the partisan way in which the question was asked, mindful that the JSCCCC has always acted in a bipartisan way. The member tried her diversionary stunt this morning - she must admit that it was a stunt - to take away focus from the Leader of the Opposition having misled this house yesterday. When she did that, I checked with a Liberal Party member on my committee and asked whether that person had raised an issue with the member for Nedlands. I asked whether there was something he wanted raised. He said no. The Liberal Party member in the other house had no idea that the member was going to pull that stunt today. Last Thursday, when I thought that I politely rebutted her assertion that the parliamentary inspector and committee members had no idea that I was speaking at the conference in Sydney, I was perhaps overly humble in understating that I write my own speeches. Clearly, in the supplementary answer, I thought that I had clarified this. I wish to clearly state right now that it was my own speech with verbatim technical information only on dates and chronology provided to me by the parliamentary inspector and Commissioner Hammond for accuracy only. They were provided, as I replied to the member, in dot point form by the inspector. The member has informed us this morning that she has been down with Richard Nixon listening to tapes. I do not know whether, when the member was with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she was on stress leave at the time when they did the training on listening to tapes. I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I make two points. The first is that the member for Perth is misleading the house. The second is that ambient noise has meant that large parts of his answer have been inaudible. I ask him to repeat his comments in their entirety. The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
(1)-(3) Once again, the premise of the member’s question is wrong. The official Hansard became available on Monday this week. I am somewhat alarmed that the member or a member of the Liberal Party has been hawking copies of the daily Hansard in this house. That is a serious issue that should be reported to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. I informed Mr Speaker and the commissioner and the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission on Monday when I became aware that the member or someone attached to her had been trying to beat up incorrect information in the media from the question and answer contained in Hansard . The question from the member contains false premises. Rather than embarrass the member for Nedlands by pointing out her ignorance of committee procedures - for example, the enabling motion that Assembly committees pass for a four-year term unless rescinded, which authorises the chair to be the only spokesperson for the committee - last Thursday I attempted to politely and charitably inform the member of the process in this instance. I also resisted the urge to respond to her in the partisan way in which the question was asked, mindful that the JSCCCC has always acted in a bipartisan way. The member tried her diversionary stunt this morning - she must admit that it was a stunt - to take away focus from the Leader of the Opposition having misled this house yesterday. When she did that, I checked with a Liberal Party member on my committee and asked whether that person had raised an issue with the member for Nedlands. I asked whether there was something he wanted raised. He said no. The Liberal Party member in the other house had no idea that the member was going to pull that stunt today. Last Thursday, when I thought that I politely rebutted her assertion that the parliamentary inspector and committee members had no idea that I was speaking at the conference in Sydney, I was perhaps overly humble in understating that I write my own speeches. Clearly, in the supplementary answer, I thought that I had clarified this. I wish to clearly state right now that it was my own speech with verbatim technical information only on dates and chronology provided to me by the parliamentary inspector and Commissioner Hammond for accuracy only. They were provided, as I replied to the member, in dot point form by the inspector. The member has informed us this morning that she has been down with Richard Nixon listening to tapes. I do not know whether, when the member was with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she was on stress leave at the time when they did the training on listening to tapes. I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I make two points. The first is that the member for Perth is misleading the house. The second is that ambient noise has meant that large parts of his answer have been inaudible. I ask him to repeat his comments in their entirety. The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
Last Thursday, when I thought that I politely rebutted her assertion that the parliamentary inspector and committee members had no idea that I was speaking at the conference in Sydney, I was perhaps overly humble in understating that I write my own speeches. Clearly, in the supplementary answer, I thought that I had clarified this. I wish to clearly state right now that it was my own speech with verbatim technical information only on dates and chronology provided to me by the parliamentary inspector and Commissioner Hammond for accuracy only. They were provided, as I replied to the member, in dot point form by the inspector. The member has informed us this morning that she has been down with Richard Nixon listening to tapes. I do not know whether, when the member was with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she was on stress leave at the time when they did the training on listening to tapes. I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact -
I have 100 per cent confidence in Hansard in this house. Late yesterday there were five of us in the chamber discussing the very important issue of avian influenza. I made a contribution. I have received today, like all members, a duplicate copy of my speech from Hansard, on which members of this chamber have the option to make clarifications and suggestions. That is unlike the situation in the federal Parliament, in which John Howard rewrote racist slurs that he had made in Parliament and Hansard had to incorporate them. In this chamber, members have the option to clarify what is said. In my speech last night, I referred to the southern sultan provinces of Thailand. However, the word “sultan” was not included in the Hansard transcript. I am pretty sure I said the word “sultan”. I think that is a very important technical point, so I have included it as a correction on the duplicate that I will put into the wrapper and send to the Hansard office. It is up to Hansard whether it incorporates that clarification. I will create no pressure and make no contact. If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact -
If the member for Nedlands or any of her cronies are implying that because somebody supplied me with a chronology, an independent inspector or a commissioner would be endorsing the views in a speech, I find that quite scurrilous. From the incorrect premise of her question last week, the assertion I thought she was trying to make was that I plagiarised my speech because I checked my facts. I am a journalist; and journalists in the chamber and gallery would know that journalists check their facts. In fact -
The SPEAKER : Order! Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I make two points. The first is that the member for Perth is misleading the house. The second is that ambient noise has meant that large parts of his answer have been inaudible. I ask him to repeat his comments in their entirety. The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
The SPEAKER : That is very amusing, but it is not a point of order. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.N. HYDE : The point I was making is that esteemed ministers such as the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who trained as journalists, check their facts before they present them in the house. I am very much aware that lawyers operate in an adversarial area and rather than talking to the truth and getting the facts right, they are prone to try to colour an issue. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! This answer has been going for nearly 10 minutes. I direct the member for Perth to bring it to a conclusion so that we can proceed. Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
Mr J.N. HYDE : I repeat: the technical information in my speech was provided by the parliamentary inspector. Neither the parliamentary inspector nor anybody else wrote the views in that speech. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Time is dragging on. I am sure that we do not wish to drag this out too much longer.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.