Page 4045 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is no doubt, Mr Deputy Speaker; if you look at that particular question you cannot fail to come to the conclusion that in fact Mr Connolly answered the question by saying that there would not be any changes in the number of staff employed. That is clearly the answer he was giving to that question. But I accept that he might have made a mistake. He might have made an innocent mistake, even. Perhaps he was tired; perhaps he did not understand the question that was put to him.
Mr Connolly: It was 9.30 in the morning.
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, it was late at night.
Mr Connolly: No, it was in the morning.
MR HUMPHRIES: The morning. Perhaps he had had a late night the previous evening and had not been able to - - -
Mr Kaine: Perhaps he had had a hard time in the caucus before he got down there.
MR HUMPHRIES: Or indeed, he might have had a hard time in the caucus. Perhaps he could not quite collect his thoughts. He was a bit groggy, perhaps, from the early morning battering he had in the caucus and he came in and he did not quite understand what was going on. I would accept that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would accept him coming in here and saying, "I said words that I really now regret. I really should not have said, 'Will there be any changes? No'.".
Ms Follett: He has said that.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, he has not said that.
Ms Follett: Yes, he has.
MR HUMPHRIES: He has not said that. "We will have no need for any additional staff. Any reduction in staff numbers? Yes." He could have said, "I used a poor choice of words. I should have said something different. I used the wrong words". He could have said that, but he has not said that. He has maintained that somehow all the rest of us are wrong. We misinterpret the words he has used and in fact when he really said, "No, no", he meant, "Yes, yes", and if you read the rest of it - the whole context - that is clearly what he was saying. That is not good enough.
If Mr Connolly had come and said, "I was in error. I should have used different words. I apologise for that, but what I really was saying - you can see this from the context - was this", we might have accepted it. But he has not done that, so far. What he should have said at the very outset of this was, "I got it wrong. This is what I meant to say", and there would have been no further debate about this matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .