Page 1704 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let me get back to the two standards you have on this. Senator Tate was in trouble because his statements would have prejudiced a trial. You want to criticise us because we refuse to make statements that would prejudice a trial. You cannot have it both ways, because you will be quite hypocritical if you do. So the arguments you used about Senator Tate are quite spurious, on two grounds.
Let us go back to the matter of behaviour of members of this parliament and of the ministry. I do not think it is expected that we should be paragons of virtue. I believe the community would expect us to be subject to the same frailties as anyone else. We are not held accountable when we meet and do not always face well the difficulties common in society. We are not held responsible for family breakdowns or for our children finding themselves in strife. Our personal lives are not in such close scrutiny, nor should they be. As an exception, if I were to stand up here and rave on about moral issues and then outside conduct myself in a totally different way, then I should rightly be criticised. Other than that, my personal life is not particularly a matter for this Assembly.
But our behaviour in matters of law is different. There is a very clear requirement on members of parliament, and more especially on Ministers, to set some standard or, better, to meet some community standard. I have not gone into the parliamentary literature. I have not researched the book on parliamentary procedures or anything else, but I came into this place setting one clear standard for myself, and I believe it is a sensible one. It is this: the 17 of us here are responsible for making the laws. On that basis we must observe and have respect for those laws. If we fail to do so, we must pay the penalty. I think that is clear, it is simple, and I do not think that can be disputed.
Where does Mr Duby stand in relation to that clear principle? He failed to observe the law once, when he was not in this parliament - so that is of no account.
Mr Humphries: It depends on what the law is.
MR WOOD: It was not the law that was broken?
Mr Humphries: No, it depends on which law is broken; that is what I am saying.
MR WOOD: It depends on which law?
Mr Humphries: Yes.
MR WOOD: Well, you draw up for me a list of the different laws that we can and cannot break.
Mr Humphries: Normally traffic offences. Have you been convicted of a traffic offence before? Have you? No answer to that question.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .