Page 1062 - Week 04 - Thursday, 1 April 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Motion of Censure
MR STEVENSON (3.04): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion of censure of the Attorney-General, Terry Connolly.
Leave granted.
MR STEVENSON: I move:
That this Assembly censure the Attorney-General, Mr Terry Connolly, for misleading it.
I understand the importance of this motion, both for the public and for this parliament, and I do not move it lightly. However, knowing the facts as I do, I feel that it would be improper for me not to move to censure the Attorney-General.
Last week, on Tuesday, 23 March, Mr Connolly misled this Assembly during the debate on domestic violence. Today I will table written evidence to show that Mr Connolly made statements, recorded in Hansard, which clearly contradict earlier written statements he made. Not only did Mr Connolly mislead the members of this Assembly but his statements in the house contradicting his own signed letter of 21 January 1993 show that he knew that what he said in parliament was untrue.
Today I will show three things. I ask members to consider each one of these things separately. I believe that it is clear that any one of them, if proven, would warrant censure. Firstly, I put it that what Mr Connolly said in this house was not the truth, in that it contradicted earlier statements he had made. His statements also misrepresented the content and tone of a letter of invitation he received to a domestic violence forum; thus he misled the house. Secondly, the written evidence shows that Mr Connolly must have known that what he said in this house was untrue because it contradicted earlier correspondence signed by him. Thirdly, what he said in the house, under privilege, unjustly maligned and defamed public organisations and individuals associated with them. This is not, nor should it be, a debate on the relative merits of legislation to prevent and control domestic violence. It is simply a debate on whether or not Mr Connolly misled the house.
Let us begin with the details. The Hansard record of 23 March shows on page 76 that Mr Connolly made certain statements in reply to a question I had raised during debate. My question asked why he had not attended or sent a representative to a public forum on domestic violence to which he and other members of this Assembly had been invited. While the Hansard record I refer to is the uncorrected proof copy, I do not expect that Mr Connolly will wish to make any significant alterations. His answer was:
Mr Stevenson asked me why I did not attend a particular meeting. I did not attend the meeting because the "invitation" for me to attend the meeting was in fact a demand that I immediately repeal the domestic violence laws in this Territory or face a High Court challenge to demonstrate their illegality and, by the way, would I like to come to this meeting and explain why I failed to repeal them. When I get that sort of extremist ratbaggery directed to me I politely decline the invitation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .