Page 1720 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We would not suggest that a Minister who overstays a 30-minute meter or receives a speeding infringement notice should resign. Mr Humphries made much of the fact that many members and Ministers may have had such minor convictions in the past. I am sure that many of us here have. I am sure that we have all had, from time to time, a parking or speeding ticket. Could Mr Humphries, however, point to one serving Minister in any government in Australia who was allowed to remain a Minister following a drink-driving offence? The courts, the police and the community generally understand the fundamental difference between these types of offences.
In summing up, let me quote from the editorial of the Canberra Times of Tuesday, 22 May 1990. The article is headed "Nolan and Duby", and states:
It is just as well that MLA Robyn Nolan, who was convicted and fined yesterday on charges of omitting income from her tax return and falsifying the identity of a person with intention to deceive or to mislead the Commissioner for Taxation, relinquished her job as Deputy Executive advising on, amongst other things, business and employment. The two were as inconsistent as having a Minister for Urban Services, under suspension from driving for his second drink-driving offence, advising on transport issues, such as whether the ACT should have a 0.05 blood alcohol limit.
I think this is a very serious offence. We are the law makers, and we expect all of the people of the ACT to obey the laws. We who sit in this place make the laws and are expected to obey them. Mr Duby should resign, Mr Speaker. If he had any principles at all, he would resign now.
MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (8.42): Mr Speaker, the motion of censure of a Minister is always a very serious matter. Under the traditions of Australian parliaments it is not undertaken lightly by an opposition, and it is certainly not treated lightly by a parliament. This censure motion is undertaken seriously by the Labor Party because we believe it concerns the most fundamental question which might be asked about a Minister, and that question is the fitness of a Minister to hold office. There are many reasons why a Minister must set the highest standards of personal and public behaviour. I would just beg to differ with Mr Collaery's example when he was speaking of a barrister. The case of a Minister is quite different, and I am surprised that Mr Collaery, as Attorney-General, appears not to understand that difference.
Mr Speaker, the responsibilities of a Minister, in supervising the public administration of the community's affairs, require that he or she maintains the highest standards of honesty, integrity and respect for the law. The community must expect that a Minister is a fit and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .