Page 4049 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can do no more than that; to fairly state my position. It is now for the floor of the house to decide whether they want to look at this issue on its merits or have a game of political football and kick a few heads. I say that I have had no intention of misleading the house, but to the extent to which you feel you have been misled I apologise to you. I say that; I can say no more.
MR STEVENSON (5.14): A censure motion is a very severe matter in this Assembly. I think that the Chief Minister's statement that we are only talking about semantics is a little unfortunate. There can be no more important matter than semantics or the correct definition of words, or meanings in general.
Mr Berry: Abolish self-government. It is pretty clear.
MR STEVENSON: I think that that should certainly go on the record. Abolish self-government is perfectly clear, as Mr Berry said. Indeed, I will continue to work to do just that until we get enough people in this place who go independent, and I mean truly independent, and actually and finally represent the majority, the vast majority, express wish of the people in this community.
I also read with care the particular statements that were shown on page 751 of the Estimates Committee Hansard. The chairman asked a question to do with the number of additional staff employed. The key word is "additional". That was the first question. The second question was, "Will there be any changes in the number of staff employed?", to which Mr Connolly replied, "No, no". The thrust of the question was, indeed, to do with additional changes. It was not to do with cuts. However, one could be reasonable in believing that the question, "Will there be any changes in the number of staff employed?" could well relate to cuts as well as additions. That is where the misunderstanding could well be.
It would have been a very simple matter to look at that and say, "Yes, I see how that could have been misleading when 'No, no', was reported in the Hansard". But Mr Connolly went on. To the chairman's statement, "Will the situation be able to be handled with the same number of staff you already have at the moment?", Mr Connolly said, "Yes". So, I believe that his intention at the time was to do with additional staff. However, later on, in answer to a question on 17 October, he said:
... did we need more staff, and I was clearly giving assurances that more efficiencies were being sought and we did not need more staff.
I think that was indeed the case. But he also said:
... I am utterly confident that on page 751 I made no statement that could be taken to be misleading.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .