Page 653 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, Ms Szuty said that she was not satisfied that the Minister did everything that he could to inform the Assembly about that break with VicTAB, and indeed that is the case. He did not inform them until an appropriate point, a point which he judged to be an appropriate point; so there is no question of his being asked a question and giving a false answer. There is no question of his being asked that question and being deliberately evasive; nor was he in any way reckless with that information. Madam Speaker, I consider that the motion of no confidence should fail, because that is the central point and, in my view, it has been explained.
Madam Speaker, I also consider that there has been a very wide debate on this matter. It is quite clear that there are many issues on which there is still confusion. I say to members two things. First, I have appointed an inquiry which is independent, which is high powered and which is available to all of you to put your views to. The second thing is that it is that inquiry which will clarify the confusion in a way that is just not able to be achieved in an Assembly like this where, quite clearly, people are in combative mode and people are arguing from a point of view rather than in a quest for the absolute facts. Madam Speaker, in view of the nature of this debate, in view of the fact that the inquiry is still under way and in view of the fact that the Minister has not misled the Assembly, I believe that in relation to that confusion which still is around members must give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. Members cannot act as the judge and jury in this matter. Even if they were a jury, they would be instructed to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt.
Mr De Domenico: By whom? By you?
MS FOLLETT: By a judge. Madam Speaker, I consider that it is very important that the Assembly retain the integrity of such a significant and important motion; that members do not act hastily and that they consider very carefully whether the motion that has been put forward this evening has been proved beyond any doubt - and I do not believe that it has been.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge members to vote against this motion and to await the outcome of the inquiry. I believe that it will clarify a vast number of the issues that have been put before us but not the issue of whether the Minister has misled the Assembly, because clearly he has not.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (11.09), in reply: Madam Speaker, Mr Berry raised several issues this afternoon in a desperate defence of the way he deliberately and recklessly misled this Assembly. I want to deal with his earlier comments about the VITAB agreement point by point to show that, if anything, Mr Berry has just dug a bigger hole for himself today. He clearly misled the Assembly, or concealed vital and relevant information from it, on a number of key issues. I will address them in the order in which the Minister did. On the question of just who were the directors of VITAB, Mr Berry said this afternoon:
The facts are that at the time the agreement was signed VITAB had advised that its directors were Dan Kolomanski, Con McMahon and Michael Dowd.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .