Page 1069 - Week 04 - Thursday, 1 April 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
would have been horrified if they had known about the demands attributed to those whom Mr Connolly accused of extremist ratbaggery. Mr Moore was one. I recall that my estimation of Mr Williams and the associations he represents was lowered by my assumption that what Mr Connolly had said was true.
There are three reasons why Mr Connolly should be censured, each of which, I believe, stands alone and any one of which would warrant censure. The first - that what Mr Connolly said in this house was not the truth in that it contradicted his own earlier written statement - is uncontestable and warrants the censure of Mr Connolly by this house. However, Mr Connolly not only changed his story as to why he did not attend the domestic violence forum; he also misled us as to the contents of the letter he received on the forum. Thus he again misled the house. Secondly, we have seen written evidence of Mr Connolly's own letter, which shows that he knew that what he said in the house was untrue when he said it 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. We have seen the numerous recommendations for Mr Barry Williams and the valuable reforms that have been achieved by the Lone Fathers Association and Parents Without Partners.
It would be a travesty of justice if any one of us failed to vote for this censure motion. Mr Connolly must now apologise to this Assembly for his deliberate and misleading statements. He should also seek to make amends for his defamatory statements to Mr Williams and the groups of which he is a member. I ask members to accept their role as upholders of the law and principles that give us our freedom. A vote against this motion because of personal political beliefs or party dictates would do a disservice to yourselves, to this Assembly and to the people of Canberra. I ask for a vote on principle.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (3.28): I am in the unique parliamentary position of responding to the second censure motion in a week. Perhaps we need to reserve a place for censure motions on every daily program. I would suggest to members that we really are debasing the currency here. Mr Stevenson's tirade does deserve a response, and I will give him one. I will acknowledge that one of Mr Stevenson's comments was accurate. He said that my response in the house that evening was "heated and aggressive", and I guess it was. My usually pleasant-tempered approach to this house was tested somewhat by Mr Stevenson's remarks in a debate on domestic violence. It not only tested my temper. I know that there were a number of women here supporting the adoption legislation, which we had just debated or were just about to debate, who were absolutely appalled by Mr Stevenson's performance. In my opening remarks in that debate I thanked members who had made valuable contributions to the debate and I said:
Members from all sides made eloquent and intelligent contributions and Mr Stevenson delivered a tirade against feminism, the Family Law Act, alcohol, the demise of the family and every other ratbag right-wing view rolled into one. His suggestion that domestic violence displays an anti-male bias, a feminist bias, just confirms all the prejudices of those hardline, right-wing misogynists out there who are dedicated to overturning domestic violence laws.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .