Page 1989 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The second part of the process, or outcome, of all the discussions on the ACTTAB-VITAB contract is the motion of no confidence in Minister Berry that we are debating today.
I also note that Professor Dennis Pearce, in his opening remarks to the inquiry, said:
I think I should say that I do not intend to review the no confidence motion in relation to Mr Berry that was passed in the Legislative Assembly; that is a matter for the parliament. It is under the terms of reference necessary for me to deal with the question of the advice that was provided to the Minister and his involvement in the establishment of the agreement.
I do not intend to deal with matters such as whether the Minister misled the parliament because the parliament has already dealt with that issue. In short, the matters that I deal with must be relevant to the terms of reference.
The only further comment that I wish to make about the separation of the two issues, Madam Speaker, is to express my regret that Mr Humphries, a member of the Opposition in this Assembly, felt it necessary to place before Professor Pearce a submission relating to Mr Berry's responsibility for matters arising out of the ACTTAB-VITAB contract. Several of the clauses of Professor Pearce's terms of reference are relevant here. The Assembly would be aware that clause (a) of the terms of reference in part refers to "the advice provided to the Minister for Sport", and clause (c) of the terms of reference refers to "the involvement of the Minister for Sport, the staff and board of ACTTAB and any other official in relation to the agreement between ACTTAB and VITAB". Mr Humphries's submission to the inquiry may well have had relevance to these terms of reference.
Madam Speaker, I have been talking about the importance of considering the no-confidence motion and the inquiry as two separate issues; yet, as Professor Pearce states in his report - I believe that it is paragraph 200 of the report:
Mr Humphries then invited me to find that Mr Berry had indeed deliberately misled the Legislative Assembly.
He further states:
I do not propose to enter upon this issue. It would constitute a reopening of the matters dealt with in the no-confidence debate that led to Mr Berry's resignation. This could well be thought to constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege. In any case, as I said at the outset of this Report, I do not consider that my Terms of Reference embrace that topic.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .