Page 1318 - Week 05 - Thursday, 25 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Further on the record states:
MR LAMONT: You want this one?
Mr De Domenico: I do not know. Which one were you reading?
It is perfectly clear that Mr Lamont had a number of documents before him and that Mr De Domenico was asking for the document from which he read; not the document which he referred to to get ideas for his speech from, not his speaking notes, but the document from which he was reading. It was perfectly plain, on reading that Hansard account, what document Mr De Domenico was referring to.
Let us be frank about something. You knew that that document was a leaked document. You knew that the document was a sensitive document and you were reluctant to table it in this Assembly. That is why you did not want to table that document in this Assembly. It was a document that you did not want us in this Assembly to see and that you wanted to hide. That is why, Madam Speaker, I cannot accept that the ordinary meaning of the words Mr De Domenico used in his question - "that document that he was reading from" - could possibly have been misinterpreted by Mr Lamont to mean the document that he was using for his speech notes.
Mr De Domenico went to see Mr Lamont to make clear to him what he was saying and what he felt Mr Lamont should have done when this issue was raised in the Assembly. It was a chance, which I think every member of this Assembly should enjoy, to correct the record; to put things straight when one strays from the standard that we accept, I hope, in this Assembly as the standard which we should all live up to. Mr Lamont did not take up that opportunity. He said, "No, you are making a debating point. I am not conceding to you. I will not do what you ask".
Regrettably, Madam Speaker, that has left us in the position of having to move this motion. It is not moved lightly. It is in accordance with a standard which this Assembly, I believe, has thoroughly ingrained on its practices and which we should not put aside. It is undoubtedly true to say that a New South Wales Premier only recently met his political demise because of having to live up to a standard which perhaps he might have come to regret. Madam Speaker, regret that standard or not, we have to live up to that standard. I would submit, Madam Speaker, that we should support and pass this motion.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.21): Madam Speaker, Mr Berry will be providing the substantial Government response on this absurd motion. In brief remarks beforehand Mr Berry said that there is not a shred of evidence to support this. The word "shred" jigged something in my mind. Mr Moore was very sanctimonious in his remarks about Fitzgerald and corruption, high principles and high standards. This is the man who avoided tabling a document in the Assembly by putting it through the shredder in 1990.
Mr Humphries: And he apologised for it in the end. He apologised to the Assembly for it. He acknowledged his mistake.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .