Page 4048 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: You can carry on, Mr Berry, but you know what I am talking about. The fact of life, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that a higher standard ought to be set by those opposite. I might say that, for the most part, most members opposite do at least aspire to that standard. I have a particular Minister in mind who does not, but I will not go into that because that is not relevant; I will concede that at the outset.
In closing, let me say that it is vitally important that we set higher standards in these matters. Mr Connolly, on the standard set by his own party, in particular by Mr Berry in these matters, ought to concede that he has been mistaken and ought to respond accordingly. If he does not, I will, with the greatest regret - I take this action with the greatest gravity, I assure you - have to agree with the motion and vote for the motion to censure him for misleading the Assembly, because I believe that if Ministers are in that position they ought to face up to their responsibilities squarely and not shirk them.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (5.12): I rise to speak on the amendment moved by Mr Berry. It is to the effect that my statements were consistent. I will try to leave aside the political tirade we have just heard from Mr Humphries, directed mostly, ironically, at Mr Berry rather than me; but perhaps that is a one-track mind.
In my original remarks, in my original defence, I said that to the extent to which my remarks - after reading them very carefully myself on repeated occasions - have been taken out of context and can have the effect of misleading, to the extent members feel they have been misled, I apologise. I can do no more than that. I cannot apologise for misleading because I continue to maintain that, read in context, they are not misleading. I certainly have no intention of misleading. I take my obligations to this house very seriously, as indeed do all members of this ministry.
Last year there was an exchange between Mr Humphries and me when I think I, on one occasion, made an allegation which I later withdrew. I cannot remember the context even, Mr Humphries, but when I have made a statement that is inaccurate - and it has occurred in relation to you - I have been very quick to pull it back. I do take my obligations to this house very seriously.
I can do no more than say to members, to members who are looking at this fairly rather than trying to score political points, that to the extent to which you have been misled I apologise; but I maintain that I had no intention of so doing and that, as I read it, my intention was to give a clear and consistent answer in relation to additional staff as opposed to the repeated answers on staff reductions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .