Page 772 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The suggestion in this motion that the Attorney-General is unable to discharge his material obligations in a fitting manner is simply and utterly a lie. The Attorney-General performs his responsibilities as a Minister extremely well, better than any of the ex-Ministers on the other side, and that includes the former Chief Minister. He discharges his responsibilities totally to my satisfaction and beyond and there is no way that any request from the Opposition for me to remove him from office is likely even to get a hearing. It is utterly ridiculous and reprehensible to suggest it.
Finally, somebody on the other side of the house said, "This debate will reflect badly on this Assembly". No, it will not. This debate will reflect badly on those who brought it forward in the first place. Those who moved this reprehensible motion, they alone will bear the odium that comes from this debate.
The people out there in the electorate are not interested in this kind of personal denigration, whether it is on the floor of this house or anywhere else. If you people from the Opposition believe that you can throw this mud, carry on this smear, carry on this distortion of the truth, talk about wilful and deliberate misrepresentation when you yourselves are guilty of it, and that you can then walk away clean yourselves, have another think. You are not going to, and you will bear the odium of this debate.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (4.37): Mr Speaker, I am addressing the amended motion. I think the Chief Minister catalogued our response and that response, of course, points to the credibility of those opposite us. Credibility is an important issue here and clearly if this Opposition wanted to test me out, they would ask me some questions as to how I discharge my functions as Minister. I would again emphasise that not once have they asked me a question without notice. If, during question time, I ask Ms Maher, my colleague, to ask me a question so I can further elucidate an issue of public interest, they attack me for that short, framed dorothy dix. I believe that democracy is at a low ebb and their perception of it is very low, too.
The fact is that it is only a few weeks since the Leader of the Opposition asked my colleague the Chief Minister whether I was running "a luxurious law practice". I was not running that law practice. There was a young man in there, and in my view it was no coincidence that the plate glass window was broken a couple of days later. I do not suggest that anyone opposite me or present here is responsible. It was very sad that that happened and he has now moved from the premises.
I believe that those issues need to be approached a lot more carefully in future from the Opposition side. Clearly what you are saying to me and what you propose to write around the country is that I am a lying Attorney-General.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .