Page 1311 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 16 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
concerned the fact that the Chief Minister was to be elected that day. At that time I distinctly remember a discussion with Mr Stevenson and the four members of the Rally, in what I could only describe as an anteroom off the main chamber of the headquarters of the Liberal Party, in which Mr Collaery made it quite clear that Mr Stevenson's vote would not be used in any way to form a coalition.
It was made very clear to Mr Stevenson at that stage, in my interpretation, that he did not have the balance of power; that it was not going to be used. That was the reality of it. There was never, as far as I can remember - I imagine that Mr Collaery can recall this too - any suggestion in the negotiations of a ministerial position at that stage for Mr Stevenson.
He has failed to answer the question about the four Ministers of the Crown who have accused him of being too persistent. I accept that it could be reasonable to construe Mr Collaery's comments as an accusation along those lines. I would have been quite happy if he had suggested that it was Mr Whalan. He could have described Mr Stevenson in that way, quite clearly, as he was a Minister of the Crown. But Mr Stevenson has failed to do that.
I turn to the notion of a ministerial package of $84,000 a year. Mr Stevenson referred to a "proposed" package, as opposed to saying that it was proposed that he have the ministerial package. I think that that is hardly an appropriate attempt to answer the questions that have been raised in this censure motion.
I think that what has been set out is entirely inappropriate and reflects very badly on the Assembly as a whole. I think we have a responsibility, under those circumstances, to censure Mr Stevenson for misleading people about the role that he plays in the Assembly, and thereby misleading the broader Australian community in this case about the Assembly as a whole.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (5.31): Mr Speaker, I have some short comments to make. I think it is unfortunate for the Assembly that Mr Stevenson has not responded to the invitation issued in this house for him to correct the record. In other words, he is unrepentant. I seem to recall that word being used previously for him. What Mr Stevenson has done is to trivialise his own role here. In that sense it has been a victory for good sense today in that the public can clearly see what a trivial sort of role Mr Stevenson perceives for himself and how, as the Chief Minister said, he is opportunistic. I endorse the comments of Rosemary Follett and those of Mr Moore and Mr Kaine.
One of the items in Mr Stevenson's list of goods that he has to offer is this statement: "If it is to be, it's up to me". That made me recall what I read once on a toilet wall in Italy. I recall seeing in English - that is why I noticed it - this statement:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .