Page 1727 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Follett: I'd keep quiet about that.
MR DUBY: Mr Speaker, it was raining and I believe the officer wished to get out of the rain. That is the simple fact, and that is the truth of the matter. Having twice supplied breath samples which failed to affect in any way the roadside samples, I saw no reason to be subjected to further detention and refused to supply a sample at the police station. I want that point to be made perfectly clear.
Finally, I have listened to Mr Stevenson telling us that members of parliament are required to set a standard above that of the rest of the community, that we should behave in all ways with great propriety. This is from a man who has confessed that he slept in this building and, Mr Speaker - it is in the Hansard of today - you claim that he misled you in your capacity as Speaker.
There has never been any implication that I have misled the house, that I have behaved in a dishonest way or a way that is supposed to add to my personal fortune or anything like that, and there has certainly never been any implication that I have behaved in an administratively incompetent fashion. The accepted reasons for which I, or any other Minister, should tender a resignation have not been complied with.
Mr Speaker, I do not believe that the seriousness of my offence - and I will not dispute that it is an offence - warrants the tendering of my resignation. I am deeply embarrassed about the whole incident. To those who may feel that something is required I offer a heartfelt apology if they felt that I have brought down the standing of this place in any way. However, I do not believe that the matters that have been raised in this censure motion warrant the tendering of my resignation, and I shall not.
MR BERRY (9.09), in reply: The first member of the Government with whom I would like to deal as a result of this debate is Mr Collaery. It seems to be quite natural lately, Mr Speaker, because of his behaviour. If his behaviour on this issue is any example of what we might expect in the future there will be many other times when people will wish to focus on his performance.
I refer to Mr Collaery's reference to a 1957 matter in relation to this debate. I am very surprised that this was the best that Mr Collaery could come up with, with over a week's notice and all of his resources. There is no possible connection between the standards set for the professional conduct of a barrister, for heaven's sake, in 1957 and those set for a Minister in 1990. A barrister plying his trade, as he or she does, would generally be disbarred for honesty offences. That is fair enough.
In 1957 I should say that drink-driving would not have been so regarded. It certainly would not have been regarded as
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .