Page 553 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT: Yes, Madam Speaker, a clear effort to blacken that man's character, but without the opposing view ever being put forward. There will be those kinds of conflicts, Madam Speaker. For that reason I say to all members of this Assembly: Wait for the inquiry; take part in the inquiry; put forward your submissions, your views, your allegations, your assertions, and even your grubby little mud-slinging tactics to the inquiry; and let that independent and respected person come to the appropriate conclusions.
MR HUMPHRIES (3.49): Madam Speaker, this is not the first time that a motion of no confidence in a Minister in this Government has been moved.
Mr Wood: No; you move them once a year, or three or four times a year.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Wood understandably stirs on being reminded of that fact. It is the first time that a motion of this dimension, based on deliberate or reckless misleading of the Assembly, has been moved in the Assembly, and is an occasion for us to reflect on the nature of the standard that we apply to Ministers in this place and, indeed, any member in this place to accurately and truthfully advise this place of the facts as they are known to that person. There is, I think, a reluctance on the part of the Assembly to embark on motions of no confidence or censure because they are a drastic and far-reaching solution to a particular problem.
The problem, if I may put it that way, is ensuring that this house at all times is told the truth. It is not necessarily the case that the house is always told everything it wants to know or might wish to know if it were aware of that information. Sometimes, and I concede this readily, it is appropriate for a government to delay supplying information for various reasons. It is not compelled, for example, to announce policy before it makes that policy and so on; but when it does make statements, when it does tell people in this place certain things, it is obliged to tell the truth - to quote that well-worn phrase - the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
This principle has been honoured by many parliaments all over the world, particularly in the Westminster system, for many, many years. Even during World War II, I understand, the House of Commons in Great Britain would occasionally move into in-camera proceedings in order to ensure that it could receive sensitive information about the conduct of the war. The reason that happened is that the house, notwithstanding the fact that a war was going on, was entitled to know everything, the full truth, about what was going on. Governments would, of course, ensure that that was done without jeopardising the national interest. It may be that the House of Representatives was in the same position during that war. In making those sorts of decisions in that kind of action they respected the concept that, although a government might choose not to put information before parliament at particular times, if it did put information before parliament it should be put forward truthfully or so as to not mislead by selective quoting of particular information. That principle has been defended by all parliaments in Australia at various times, and it is being defended again here today in this place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .