Page 914 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 30 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, if we have censure motions on matters that are not serious, then the system that we have and the system that oppositions have for taking Ministers to task will be whittled away. It is very important that we have the ability to express our lack of confidence in a Minister if we consider that that Minister has failed in his duty, either by not performing or by attempting to mislead the house in some way or other. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I will not be supporting this motion of censure of Mr Connolly.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.28), in reply: Madam Speaker, to conclude this debate which - - -
Mr Berry: Just say, "I give up". That would be easier and we will get onto something else.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, I never say, "I give up". That is never my approach. I must say that I am disappointed that there are some here who do not believe that a high standard should be set on these questions and who, acknowledging, notwithstanding, that some embellishment or gilding of the lily, or whatever the expression was, might have occurred, do not feel that they are able to support this motion. Perhaps, as future Ministers in future governments, such people might feel that it is good insurance for them to say things without quite so much care as might otherwise be the case.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the censure motion ought to be carried by the Assembly. I want to make reference to a couple of comments made by other members in the debate before I conclude. The Chief Minister contributed by saying that I did not think Mr Connolly had deliberately misled the Assembly and, therefore, what was the point of a censure motion. I think that Mr Moore summed up very well the basis on which to proceed in those circumstances. It is the case that people intentionally or unintentionally - more often unintentionally - mislead the Assembly or parliament by saying certain things. In those circumstances, it seems to me, it is appropriate for a person to acknowledge a mistake if they have made one. If they make an honest mistake but then will not admit it and will not acknowledge it, that I think is grounds for censure. Mr Connolly, in my view, has made a mistake, and I would give him the credit of saying that it was an honest mistake, but he does not admit to it being a mistake at all. That, of course, presents a difficulty. The Assembly has to decide whether it is a mistake and whether it appears to be a mistake, and it appears as if it is going to decide that it is not.
Ms Follett and other speakers also, I think, misunderstood or misheard what I had said about saying that "misled" was too strong a word. I think the Hansard record will clearly show that I made that comment in respect of Mr Connolly's remarks about armed robbery last year. I was going to go on to say that Mr Connolly misled the house about armed robbery. I withdrew from that and said that perhaps "misled" is too strong a word because he did come back and correct what he had said; but the fact is that he did tell the Assembly the wrong thing about armed robbery - he has admitted that - and he came back to this place and corrected it. So I am not suggesting that "misled" is too strong a word. In general, what I am saying in relation to that particular case is that, because he corrected it, it was too strong a word.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .