Page 3095 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: I did.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Kaine, I think Mr Berry understands that.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, the fact of life is that the comments by the committee which are being attacked by some members opposite tonight were all carefully documented and can be clearly substantiated to the satisfaction of any reasonable person.
I want to come back to that meeting which has been discussed already tonight, which I think took place on 2 November - - -
Mr Lamont: Monday.
MR HUMPHRIES: The Monday, yes. At that meeting there was consideration of some comments which I tabled in the committee concerning unresponsive answers. The impression might have been created for those listening to this debate that in some way these comments were advanced secretively or surreptitiously to the committee or dealt with in a way which denied some members of the committee who sit opposite the right to comment on them fully. I did table those comments in the committee. I was the only committee member to table his or her contribution at the time of the meeting, as opposed to afterwards, as some other members did.
Ms Ellis and Mrs Grassby were present at the time. We stopped and read through the comments I had made. There was some debate about references, particularly the use of footnotes; but the substance of nothing that I said was questioned by those present at the meeting. In fact, I came away from the meeting with the distinct impression that the comments would not be challenged or repudiated in the final report. But then something happened.
Mr Kaine: The Minister finally found out what you had said.
MR HUMPHRIES: Perhaps. Something happened, Madam Speaker. The net result was that suddenly there were great cries about this matter. Someone did not like the idea of the headlines that might be generated by particular comments which appeared in the report. That process is rather unfortunate, and perhaps Mr Lamont's inquiry into the leak to the Canberra Times could look into that question at the same time.
Madam Speaker, the final thing I want to do is indicate that some of the dissenters to the report tonight have, I believe, impugned some of the conduct of the chair of the committee. I, as Mr Kaine did, disagreed with the appointment by the whole Assembly of the chair of the committee. It does not happen in other cases. Committees are elected by the Assembly, and the committee itself then chooses a chair. But that did not happen in this case. The chair was appointed by the Assembly.
Mr Kaine: On the motion of the Chief Minister.
MR HUMPHRIES: On the motion, indeed, of the Chief Minister. But, Madam Speaker, despite that appointment, I think the committee did a good job. I would personally be quite happy to see Ms Szuty appointed again in 1993 to do that job.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .