Page 1703 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
courts. This is unprecedented. In five to six months in office, you have done two Ministers - a new Australian record.
Mr Kaine: Mrs Nolan was not a Minister.
MR CONNOLLY: Well, a new Australian record involving a Minister and an Executive Deputy. Today we have some new defences. One is that this happened before he entered the ministry and therefore he should not stand down. Well, you knew the charge was pending when you appointed him to the ministry, so that does not hold up. Is it the standard that applies under a Kaine Government that a Minister done for refusing a breath test which occurred while he was a Minister should resign but that a Minister done for refusing a breath test before he became a Minister is all right? What an extraordinary and convoluted approach you have, Mr Kaine - what an extraordinary and shameful approach to ministerial responsibility!
We are quite happy to maintain our view that, if you have a criminal conviction, you are not fit to serve in the ministry. The community is behind us on this. The media understand that this is the case because you would never get away with it anywhere else. Mr Humphries said that this has happened before. Let him name one example of a person done for alcohol related road offences who remains a Minister.
MR WOOD (5.44): First of all, it might be important to rule on a matter of definition. Government members seem incapable of determining the difference between a Minister and member of parliament. There is a significant difference. The Minister has a high responsibility, has high leadership roles and is therefore so much more responsible to the parliament and to the community. Ministers historically and properly are not treated in the same way as members of parliament. We have made no call for either Mrs Nolan or Mr Duby to resign from the parliament. We have made calls and charges about the ministry, and maybe those opposite ought to understand that and not seek to confuse the issue by blurring over any distinction.
Let me go to the matter of Senator Tate. On this the Government appears to want the best of both worlds. It wants to use its arguments in two ways that are quite incompatible. Senator Tate was in strife, and properly so, because his statements prejudiced a trial.
Mr Kaine: He did not resign.
MR WOOD: No, let me clear this up. It was a marginal case. He was close to having to resign or to the Prime Minister taking action. If you line up Mr Duby's offences and Senator Tate's offences, it is very clear that Mr Duby's offences are so much more serious.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .