Page 564 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The best example of why Mr Berry cannot ignore, shelve or shovel off the responsibility for this matter comes with the question of the directorship of VITAB. The directors of VITAB, he told us, were Mr Kolomanski, Mr McMahon and Mr Dowd. He said that on at least two occasions in this place. We tabled in this place a company search which said that the directors were Mr Kolomanski and Mr McMahon, but they did not include a Mr Michael Dowd. The third director was a certain Oak Ltd. Mr Berry had said that Mr Dowd was a director. So here he is saying in this place that Mr Dowd is a director, and the Liberals are tabling a company search saying that Mr Dowd is not a director. Mr Berry has two possible conclusions to draw. One is that the Liberal Party has tabled a forged company search in this place. Even by the standards which he attributes to us, that is a fairly exceptional and somewhat bizarre turn of events, I would have thought. Perhaps the more plausible explanation is that the information he has supplied to the Assembly is untrue. Either he was extremely stupid at the point where he chose to ignore that particular piece of evidence staring him in the face, or he did not want to reconcile the inconsistencies that faced him.
In these circumstances, Madam Speaker, Mr Berry cannot hide behind advice given to him by his advisers or by ACTTAB. He cannot plead that he did not want to believe the Liberals and, therefore, did not have to believe the Liberals. What he has done in this place is conduct absolutely inconsistent with his duty as a Minister in this place, and is conduct for which he should resign or be sacked. Madam Speaker, I do not know whether this motion will succeed today. The members on the cross benches have not given us any commitments about their position and I do not know whether it will succeed or fail, but I will say this much: If the motion does fail there will be a bright side. I have been a Minister in the ACT and I hope one day to be a Minister again. If I am a Minister I will draw some comfort from the failure of the passage of this motion today. The standard that I will need to meet will be a fairly easy standard to attain.
I will not need to worry very much about what I tell this place, because of the precedent set here today if this motion is not passed. I will not need to worry about telling this place that the Adoption Act will be enacted in the next few weeks. It will not matter very much if I say that and it is not true. I will not need to worry very much about telling this place about who the directors of particular companies are, with information at my disposal. It will not matter very much. I will not need to tell this place that every other health authority in Australia produces the same kinds of intrusive search powers that the ACT happens to want to put forward, because it will not matter very much if I say that. That, Madam Speaker, may well be the legacy of the Second Assembly to future parliaments in this place. I must say that, despite the fact that it would make life easier for Ministers in future governments, it would be nothing much for this place to be proud of.
I think the onus falls on us now, today, to make it clear that the standard of ministerial accountability that has been set by this Minister is unacceptable. If this place is to remain relevant, if it is to retain its capacity to keep Ministers accountable under the Westminster tradition, we have no choice but to pass this motion. Anything less would be, in my respectful opinion, a great tragedy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .