Page 2928 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It goes on to say:
The Committee views this with great concern. Whilst Assembly Committees do not swear witnesses prior to evidence being taken, nonetheless, there is an obligation on all witnesses to give accurate and complete evidence. Potential witnesses should be aware that to give misleading evidence could be a contempt of the Assembly.
It goes on for another paragraph. Madam Speaker, in the debate on that report the officer we are involved with was referred to on 20 November 1990. On page 4293 of Hansard he is named in this way:
The credibility question also brings us to the issue in education and the misleading of the Assembly committee by Dr Willmot, which is reported in paragraph 2.13.
It then went on. I was the one who named Dr Willmot as being that senior public servant. I note, Madam Speaker, that that Estimates Committee report was a unanimous report. There were additional comments by Mr Connolly and by me, but they were not dissenting comments. It was a unanimous report and the question on the report on the Appropriation Bill by the Estimates Committee, shown on page 4320 of Hansard of 20 November, was resolved in the affirmative. To be fair, the Minister of the time, Mr Humphries, did make some attempt to defend Dr Willmot at that time. We are dealing with somebody who was named in this Assembly, somebody who was identified in the Estimates Committee as being prepared to mislead the committee when giving evidence. That is the view that the committee formed. I might add, Madam Speaker, that the committee did not come to that conclusion lightly.
Mr Lamont: A unanimous view.
MR MOORE: A unanimous view. I point out that a series of members of the Alliance Government, not in the ministry, were on that committee and they obviously came to the same view, because there was no dissent. So, Madam Speaker, that is what we are dealing with. This same person, according to the Leader of the Opposition, provided this information:
I strongly advised the Minister to correct the public impression, but he did nothing ... I formed the view that both deceived the house.
I can understand that, because Dr Willmot was miffed. He was terribly miffed. First of all, under the Federal Government, he had tried to close schools. In fact, he had got away with a few. The Downer school in Ms Follett's own suburb had been closed under the influence of Dr Willmot. It is my understanding, and I stand to be corrected on this, that he made the same proposal to Mr Whalan when he was Education Minister and Mr Whalan had the good sense to have nothing to do with it.
Then he got - joy, oh, joy - Gary Humphries; 25 schools; cut out a quarter of them; get rid of them. He managed to get a few of them closed, but not without great political penalty for the Alliance Government. Thanks are due for the efforts, particularly, of the parents in the Cook and Lyons schools and a lot of other parents as well. In fact, Ms Szuty was one of those parents who worked
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .