Page 4021 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Lamont: You are not filibustering, are you, Mr De Domenico?
MR DE DOMENICO: No, I am not, Mr Lamont. I am not filibustering; I am bringing the debate back to reality. It is very good for Mr Connolly, Ms Follett and Mr Wood to stand up and attempt to protect Mr Berry. That is fine. But let us get back to the real issue: Did Mr Berry knowingly break the law? Secondly, did he mislead the house? I am suggesting that Mr Stevenson presented a very well documented case. We know that Dr Proudfoot is not a lawyer. Ms Follett stood up and told us that he is not a lawyer. But Mr Berry knows all about lawyers because he has advice, and it took him, once again, 14 months to act on that advice. As Mr Humphries quite ably said, if the Chief Minister is so concerned about what is going on, why do not she and the Government allow any member on this side of the house - probably it would be better if it were Mr Humphries, a lawyer, or Mr Moore, or jointly - to have a look at that legal advice, or the package of legal advice, because Mr Connolly mentioned the word "package"? Let us have a look at that, because it took the Minister 14 months before he did anything about it.
I turn to another argument: Did Mr Berry mislead the house? The annual report has one connotation of the way things were. Dr Scott said something different to the Estimates Committee. Mr Berry, in the house, said something different. The activity reports said something different again. One can rightfully ask, "Which one was right? Which interpretation was the right one?".
It is all well and good for people to say that Mr Stevenson came into this house with a litany and a paper trail. Nothing I have heard from members on the opposite side of this house has convinced me that what Mr Stevenson said is either incorrect or not true. Mr Berry had his opportunity to say directly what he thought, but he did not say anything at all about the issue at hand. He talked about the HIV issue, not about whether he misled this house and whether he was breaking the law. Mr Connolly, I put to you, did the same thing. We have yet to hear arguments that will convince us on this side of the house that what Mr Stevenson said is not the way things happened.
Let me finish, Madam Speaker, by saying this. Whether we disagree or agree on the HIV issue, the two issues here are: Firstly, did Mr Berry knowingly and willingly - knowing what the law was at that time and before it was changed - break that law? That is question No. 1. Question No. 2 is: Did Mr Berry mislead this house? I put to you, Madam Speaker, and to all the other members, that nothing that has been said so far by members on the other side of the house indicates that those two things did not happen.
MR MOORE (5.08): Madam Speaker, the issue primarily, it seems to me, is about the law. But we cannot take the issue out of its context. It is a very important context - the spread of a disease that has gone rampant in a number of places. New York is a prime example. It is quite clear that a range of advice has been proffered to Ministers. We have seen advice proffered to Mr Humphries, when he was Minister, as well as a range of advice that has been proffered to Mr Berry.
I guess the question that comes through all this is an ambiguity. Should we be here attempting to judge how somebody has resolved an ambiguity in the law? I recall the schools case. When I was opposed to Mr Humphries's closure of schools we sought to get legal advice as to whether or not there was some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .