Thank you.
My comments are similar to those of Mr. Blaney. I wasn't here for the evidence that was referred to, although I've seen the written submissions the witnesses made.
However, it seems to me that in the course of a committee hearing, when we hear voluminous evidence from multiple witnesses, there will inevitably be some differences in recall and note-taking about what was said or not said. I think the members opposite are perfectly entitled, when their turn comes to speak, to try to refute the recollection—or, as Mr. Blaney says, the interpretation—of evidence that Mr. Warawa is proposing.
I agree with Mr. Blaney that it doesn't seem to be a matter where Mr. Warawa should be stopped from speaking just because the members opposite happen to disagree with what he's saying.