Page 1709 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
legislation dealing with traffic offences to create a statutory order of conduct, misconduct, but there is no evidence here - and why should we set this chamber up to retry Craig Duby when there is no evidence - that his character or his inherent qualities are in doubt.
We should be very wary, I suggest, about using a newspaper which is not used to daily competition in this city to set community standards. Mr Connolly put great measure on the Canberra Times editorial. I remind the house that the Canberra Times and the ALP MLAs have been unremitting in their pursuit of Mr Duby, by letter, caricature and personal comments. I accept the Canberra Times editorial as a legitimate viewpoint but not as a societal benchmark. Only a very shallow politician will quote a newspaper purely in support of a case.
I do not accept the nasty manner in which this debate is being used in an attempt to lower Craig Duby into the criminal ranks. That is what is being attempted, Mr Speaker. In performance and humanity Mr Duby ranks beside the best of us and, I would suggest, the best of you. It is entirely improper conduct to involve this motion now, two months after the first opportunity - - -
Mr Moore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker; there was an imputation there that members on this side and other members have been guilty of a criminal offence, which is not the case, and I ask him to withdraw that imputation.
MR SPEAKER: I uphold the comment from Mr Moore if that was the imputation.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Speaker, if there was any imputation that members on the other side have committed a criminal offence, I withdraw it. I am absolutely lost as to how that imputation could have arisen.
MR SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Mr Collaery.
MR MOORE (8.11): Mr Speaker, what is at stake here is the credibility of not only this Assembly but also the Alliance Government and the Liberal Party. The credibility of the Liberal Party is taking a major dive over this issue. It is quite clear that when Mrs Nolan did the appropriate thing and stepped down from a minor responsibility, as the Executive Deputy position is really a pretence position, it was recognised throughout Canberra that she had the courage to act appropriately and had helped to set standards, and those standards should have been followed.
The situation is clearly that Mr Duby is in a position of much greater responsibility and should have immediately stepped down for a similar offence. In lots of ways Mr Duby's offence is much worse because not only did he totally fly in the face of the law but also, as we in the community are all becoming more aware, a drink-driving offence has with it the risk of the death of people and is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .