Page 613 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that she identified the major issues quite well, I believe that there were parts of her address which were embellished. Perhaps words were added for political emphasis and focus where they may have made more impact by being even-handed. I can see Mr Humphries looking perplexed, so perhaps I could cite a couple of examples of what I mean. Mrs Carnell gave me a copy, before she delivered it, of what I think is a draft of her speech, so I was aware of some of the remarks she would be making. An example on page 3 states:
Mr Berry also said that ACTTAB won the VITAB contract in cutthroat competition with other States.
I do not recall the Minister ever referring to the competition as being cutthroat, and it has fairly obvious connotations. Some of the remarks she made were perhaps ones of overemphasis as much as anything else, and ultimately the Assembly will decide today on the case against Mr Berry. An example on page 7 states:
Mr Berry knew "full well" that ACTTAB's dumping from the Superpool was totally relevant to questions the Opposition asked him in February and March.
I think there is some doubt about that. Certainly the inference has been made that it would be the VITAB contract; it was obvious that it would be the VITAB contract, but that has never been explicitly said anywhere, to my knowledge. Those are some examples of where Mrs Carnell perhaps went a little further than I, as a member of this Assembly, would have been prepared to go.
Mr De Domenico also raised a number of matters: The very important question of the timing of the moving of the no-confidence motion; the statements the Minister had made publicly, as well as statements he had made in this Assembly; the transition of ACTTAB to a statutory authority, which occurred last year; and the process he has been through in requesting freedom of information and the expense the Liberal Opposition has been put to in securing that information. He also referred to the political stunt nature of some of the debate. I think that has been rather unfortunate. The Minister has accused the Liberals of political stunts, and I think the opposite has occurred and the Opposition has accused the Minister of political stunts on particular occasions. Mr De Domenico also brought up the very important matter of the contrast of the ACTTAB-VITAB contract arrangements with those pertaining to the casino, and he outlined the very different process the ACT went through in coming up with a casino operator for Canberra.
The Chief Minister talked a lot about the no-confidence motion pre-empting the inquiry process, and I addressed those issues earlier in my remarks. Mr Humphries focused his remarks on the gravity of the situation we are considering today and the responsibility the Minister has carried in that process. He also said, importantly, that the Assembly is the custodian of the integrity of this place, and that is quite right. He drew on the issue of whether it is appropriate that the Assembly should be considering a no-confidence motion at this stage or whether the inquiry process should proceed to its ultimate conclusion before any action is taken. He cited some very good examples of ministerial responsibility and how that has been dealt with in other parliaments. Mr Humphries, I remember, spoke for quite a long time, and I have quite a lot of notes on what he said.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .