Page 1705 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: Well, we have got categories here, it seems. But Mr Duby broke the law while serving in this parliament and the court regarded it as a very serious offence. The community, as expressed through the columns of the paper, regarded it as a serious offence. The Government and the Minister himself did not so regard it.
Let us compare it with other offences by Ministers who have had to resign. Mr MacKellar has been mentioned, as has Mr Young. Mr Garland's offence was that of trying to influence, as I recall it, the considerations of an electoral commissioner, and he was required to resign. Mr Sinclair resigned while a matter was before the court. He was ultimately found not guilty, but while the matter was before court he stepped aside. Mr Phillip Lynch at one stage stepped aside because of connections that may have been made to some land deals in Victoria. There is some National Party Minister in New South Wales, whose name I cannot recall, who resigned because he did not write on a piece of paper all the interest that he had.
If one lines those up against the offences of Mr Duby, I do not think there is much doubt that Mr Duby's offence is the greater - in part, significantly, because it included a threat, a hazard to other people. Weigh the offences, if you like, of Mrs Nolan and Mr Duby. Again Mr Duby's offence was one where there was a potential for danger to other people. If there is a scale in the matter of offences, surely that is much more serious. Mrs Nolan did the honourable thing and resigned. Mr Duby, in that much more important position of Minister and, in my view, in relation to a more serious offence, did not. I think that says it all. The Minister has not shown the respect for the law which is required of a member of this Assembly and which is especially required of a Minister of this Government. Mr Duby, in the deliberations here, is not just voting on the laws that are put into place; in the case of alcohol readings he is framing those laws. This is simply an unacceptable standard.
Mr Collaery: That's not true.
MR WOOD: Are you going to do that?
Mr Collaery: I do it.
MR WOOD: Okay, that is fine, but there are four of you sitting around a table in Cabinet who will one day put the mark on it.
Mr Humphries: There are 17 of us doing it.
MR WOOD: After Cabinet?
Mr Humphries: After Cabinet, yes.
MR WOOD: Thank you. I think the facts are clear that Mr Duby has not met the standards and should resign. If he does not resign he should be sacked.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .