Page 4023 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that Dr Scott referred to at the Estimates Committee, that one particular piece of legal advice. Unfortunately, it seems to me, from his letters, that Dr Proudfoot, in following this issue from his own perspective, has become more and more obsessed with this particular issue. He had raised an issue, quite rightly, and, with hindsight, it probably should have been dealt with a little more quickly. But whether that brings the issue to a vote on whether this Minister is competent to remain a Minister and whether he is competent to remain as a member of this Assembly is another question.
Where there is doubt, the Minister has a responsibility to clarify the particular piece of legislation. The reality is that he has brought it to this Assembly and this Assembly has clarified that issue, although not to everybody's satisfaction; but that is the way the parliament operates. It seems to me, therefore, looking back with hindsight, that for Mr Humphries to support this motion would involve a certain measure of - the word "hypocrisy" is too strong - - -
Mr Wood: Compromise.
MR MOORE: "Compromise" is a better word. It seems to me that the same things that apply here to Mr Berry apply to Mr Humphries, although not in as great strength because there has been a build-up of information over time. There certainly is evidence that the question was around during Mr Humphries's time. Mrs Carnell and I actually discussed some weeks ago whether it was appropriate to move a motion of censure of the Minister on this issue.
Mr Connolly: You get together and plot against us?
MR MOORE: Yes, we get together quite often on such things and weigh them up. It was not her party decision; it was prior to that, in order to assess, I presume, whether she was going to take it to her party. We discussed whether there was enough in this issue to suggest that the Minister had misled the house and had not been above board, and the sorts of things that have been raised by Mr Stevenson today. Our joint conclusion was no; that there was really not enough in it. There was enough to say that Mr Berry had not acted quickly enough and that perhaps he should be slapped over the fingers for not acting quickly enough in getting something to the Assembly as opposed to getting it through the Assembly. We determined at that time that we did not think there was enough in it to raise a matter of censure - not a matter of no confidence in a Minister, but a matter of censure, which I perceive as a far less serious motion.
Having listened to the arguments today, Madam Speaker, I feel that we cannot lose sight of the fact that this is driven quite strongly by somebody with a specific view about HIV - I refer to Dr Proudfoot, who has written to us over the last four or five years; to all members, I presume - and who has a very strong view about that role. I sense a certain homophobia there. A lot of the arguments that are presented by Mr Stevenson have come through that source, although he has used other sources as well. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the issue is not clear cut enough for us to make a decision to say to this Minister, "No, you are not competent enough to be a Minister; you are not even competent enough to be a member of this Assembly".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .