Page 2689 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: But you can adversely name without recommending prosecution. You can say, "We believe that Mr Wright acted wrongly". But they did not say that.
MR HUMPHRIES: Perhaps they suspected that that was the case but were not able to say that there should be a prosecution launched against that person. I think, Madam Speaker, you can look at that document and quite reasonably draw that conclusion. That is the conclusion which members of this Opposition have drawn from that document. That is the conclusion which justified the questions that were asked.
I think, Madam Speaker, for condemnation to come to any member arising out of that very obvious - very necessary, I would go so far as to say - question arising out of those comments in the royal commission is just disgraceful. Members opposite are using their numbers, apparently with the support of Independent members, to make that kind of questioning in this house unavailable to members of the Opposition, or anybody else for that matter, in the future. I ask you, Madam Speaker: Just how far does this have to go before it can be used in that fashion?
Mr Connolly: Blackening people's character is not a basis. An adverse finding by a royal commission would be a good start.
MR HUMPHRIES: You talk about blackening somebody's name. I wonder what Mr Moore is going to do in the course of this question. Mr Moore has used this forum on more than one occasion to blacken people's names.
Mr Lamont: It was not Mr Moore who stood up here this afternoon, one after the other, playing the sleaze.
MR HUMPHRIES: You will have your chance in a moment, Mr Lamont. Mr Moore has used the opportunity made available by this chamber to effectively question the integrity of people in this community, certainly sometimes people in this house but also people outside this house with, as Mr Berry puts it, no chance to defend themselves in this place. Mr Moore has used that chance. Is he now going to say that people on this side of the chamber who sit to his left should not be able to do the same thing? I wonder. What is Ms Szuty going to say about this? I wonder whether she will allow that kind of power to be exercised.
Madam Speaker, the questions that were asked were entirely reasonable, and I believe that members opposite should think again about the precedent they set by prohibiting members effectively asking questions of this kind on a perfectly legitimate public interest basis when they act as members of this Assembly.
MS SZUTY (4.02): I feel that it is unfortunate that we have to be debating a censure motion against Mrs Carnell and Mr De Domenico at this time on this day. I would totally agree with both Mr Berry and Ms Follett that the questions that both Mrs Carnell and Mr De Domenico were asking about the integrity of the chair of the board of the Tourism Commission, Mr Charles Wright, did impugn his integrity. I do not think there is any question whatsoever about that. Having read the transcript of the WA royal commission, which was tabled by Mr De Domenico, I also agree that that evidence did not support that imputation and that slur that the members of the Opposition have cast on Mr Charles Wright.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .