Page 4036 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The fact is that this entire censure motion is nothing more than an exercise in semantics. If members wish to peruse the transcript from the particular session of the Estimates Committee that is the subject of debate, it will be abundantly clear to them that the debate was about the possibility of an increase in staffing in the children's day care services section. There is no doubt about that.
To any fair-minded member reading the whole page - it is only one page; you do not have to read the whole transcript - it would be immediately apparent that the whole subject of questioning by the chairman concerned the possibility of additional staffing to the children's day care services section.
Mr Deputy Speaker, no member opposite is prepared to admit that; no member opposite is prepared to admit that Mr Connolly has given entirely correct answers, as is the case. Mr Connolly, in question time on 17 October and again today, has given an entirely consistent response. Mr Connolly at no stage has denied, as he is accused, that there would be any reduction in staff. What he did deny was that there would be additional staff.
I do not know how members opposite could have misinterpreted the transcript of the Estimates Committee in the way that they have, except for the fact that they were not there. Ms Maher was not there; she did not hear the debate. She does not know the thrust of that debate; the chairman does. I believe that it is Ms Maher's absence from the Estimates Committee debate on a subject that she claims to be interested in that has given rise to this entire farcical motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I further think that it is regrettable indeed that Ms Maher did not move the motion herself. And why did she not? Why did she wait until Mr Duby moved it for her? Could it be because Ms Maher does not share the courage of Mr Duby's convictions on this matter? She has said herself that she was not present. She has not herself offered a single argument in favour of the motion. That is very regrettable indeed. All we have heard, Mr Deputy Speaker, is Ms Maher attempting to justify her position by her alleged interest in the matter of child-care.
All I can say is that her interest in the matter of child-care did not extend to studying the budget. When she was interviewed by Julie Derrett on the question of child-care and a transcript was subsequently obtained, she did not have a single answer in her head either. If members want transcripts brought up and held against them, I would suggest that Ms Maher would not be a good person to start with.
Mr Duby: She did not lie.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .