Page 2918 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clearly, Madam Speaker, there was no suggestion of an ambit claim in any of this. The Minister comes back now, in hindsight, and says, "Oh, but that was an ambit claim". There was no reference in these documents to an ambit claim. It was an outright claim for $890,000. But the Ministers, even at that time, were conspiring together to hide $200,000 of the cost somewhere else in the education budget, and we still do not know where that is. That action was clearly intended to mislead the Assembly and to mislead the community. The deception was carried through for months. It was carried through in the house on 21 June. It was carried through in the Canberra Times on 18 June, 19 June, 20 June, 22 June, 24 June, 26 June, 14 July and 1 February 1992 - just to name a few dates on which that was repeated to the Canberra Times as the basis of the cost. Both Ministers clearly intended that the promise not to place any burden of cost on the education budget would not be met.
On 21 June it was clear that they had a public stance on that issue. On 15 June they discussed that issue. On 27 June Mr Wood claimed in the Canberra Times that the cost of the reopening of schools would be borne by the whole Territory, not by the education budget. On each occasion he knew and Ms Follett knew that $200,000 was being offset against the education budget but hidden. There was ample opportunity after that time for either of these Ministers to correct the misleading impression deliberately created. In fact, they had legal advice that they had misled the Assembly, and it was suggested to them that they correct it - and they did not do so.
Mr Connolly: What nonsense! That is nonsense. What legal advice?
MR KAINE: It is not nonsense.
Ms Follett: Where is it? Table it.
MR KAINE: I will, in a minute; but I will have to find it amongst these papers. I have got it. It states:
On 21/6/91 ... Mr Woods assisted in the answer and I formed the view that both deceived the house. As soon as a transcript of the proceedings was available (attachment 6) I got Mr John Toffer of Malleson Stephen Jarques to provide a legal opinion. He advised that in his view the house was misled.
And I will table it, if they wish it.
Mr Connolly: Who wrote that?
MR KAINE: Mr Willmot, secretary of the department. He would not know, I suppose!
Government members interjected.
MR KAINE: Now you are disavowing your secretary. Mr Willmot is not here to defend himself and he is the scapegoat.
MADAM SPEAKER: I take it that the house has given Mr Kaine leave to table that document? There being no objection, leave is granted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .