Page 1721 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
proper person to administer that law. The Labor Party, the Canberra Times and most of the Canberra community consider that Mr Duby is not fit to hold office. You have only to walk through a supermarket, go into a library, speak to people in any sphere in the ACT to know that that is their opinion. They are horrified that Mr Duby continues to hold office. That view is held not just by Labor supporters; I have had it expressed to me by business people and people of all political persuasions.
Mr Duby does not maintain the standards which are necessary for public confidence in his administration. He does not show a respect for the law. He has an obvious problem, which must lead anybody to question his judgment and his ability to manage a portfolio. People are questioning just that. By any standard of decency, by any standard of respect for the public, and indeed with any self-respect, this man should resign. If he does not, he should be sacked.
Mr Duby has been convicted of a criminal offence. It was his second conviction on related charges in a fairly short period. At the very least, that second conviction shows that Mr Duby has no respect for the law and no respect for the community which he is prepared to endanger with his irresponsible behaviour. While members of the Government argue otherwise, we consider that it also shows that he cannot be trusted to administer laws which are inextricably linked to his criminal offence.
Mr Speaker, the pages of history are littered with Ministers who have resigned because of a failure to uphold acceptable community standards of conduct. There are many, many examples which have not involved a breach of the law. You may remember the Profumo affair in England. Mr John Profumo had to resign as much because he breached contemporary morality as anything else. Mr Phillip Lynch resigned in the face of allegations - allegations only - about possible conflicts of interest.
There is also a long history of Ministers who have resigned because they have been accused of, or have actually been charged with, breaches of the law. Some of the names have been canvassed this evening, but there is quite a long list. One of Malcolm Fraser's Ministers, Vic Garland, resigned in 1976 when he was charged over a breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Mr Ian Sinclair resigned from the ministry because he faced charges which were entirely unrelated to his ministerial responsibilities.
Mr Michael MacKellar resigned in 1982 for failing to make a customs declaration about a colour television set. Mr Mick Young was another Minister who failed to make a customs declaration - that time about a teddy bear. You could well think that that is a trivial issue. Most of those resignations, Mr Speaker, could be said to relate to errors of judgment; some of them could even be considered as genuine accidents or mistakes. But in every case the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .