Page 4481 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
as being misleading. Mr Connolly could have said, as did Dr Nelson of the AMA, that the legislation is ad hoc and ill considered. He could have said, as other commentators have said, that the legislation is unenforceable and impossible to police. Mr Connolly used the vernacular "open slather". I believe that he used that entirely reasonably, having had access to the advice from the Government Solicitor's Office.
Mrs Carnell made the point that Mr Connolly should not have used that term before he had the legal advice. Mr Connolly is the Attorney-General. He is a lawyer. I think I can trust him enough to make a preliminary assessment of the impact of this legislation, and also to make a fairly short and sharp comment upon it that, were he being asked for a legal opinion, or in a court of law, he would have probably couched quite differently, as has the Government Solicitor's Office. I think the comment that it was open slather is absolutely reasonable, given the advice on the legislation.
Madam Speaker, I say again that I do not consider, in any way, that the case against Mr Connolly has been made. In fact, I do not believe that it has even been well supported. I consider that the two issues of substance have been thoroughly refuted. The major issue is that which led Mr Moore to move the motion, and that issue has been refuted to the point where Mr Moore has now retreated from his original position. I think that is a pretty fair indicator to other members of just how strong his case was at the start. Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, I accept that Mr Moore was genuine in his intention in moving this motion. I most certainly accept that Ministers ought to apply, and in this Government do apply, the highest standards, and I believe that Mr Connolly has lived up to those standards.
Madam Speaker, I think it is regrettable that we have had this occurrence. In my view, it has come about because the legislation was introduced and passed with such astonishing rapidity, absolutely astonishing rapidity. There were fewer than 24 hours between first sight of it and the passage of it. I believe that it is unacceptable to say, as Mrs Carnell said, "We will fix it up later". It is totally unacceptable. What do you expect a responsible Attorney-General to say about that kind of approach? It is totally unacceptable. We must be cautious, we must be careful in this Assembly, to make sure that the laws that we pass are well thought out, are well considered and are acceptable to the rest of the community. Madam Speaker, I repeat that Mr Connolly has my total support. There is nothing in the case put against him today that would in any way change my opinion on that matter.
MS SZUTY (5.10): Mr Connolly referred to the two charges which were made earlier this afternoon, one from Mr Humphries and one from Mr Moore. I would like to deal with the charge from Mr Humphries in the first instance. I would like to indicate to members my view on both the no-confidence motion and the censure motion, as it will become, I believe, shortly. I believe at this time that the no-confidence motion has no substance whatsoever. I am doubtful whether the censure motion has any substance; but, given that I have not heard all members in the debate, I would like to hear from other members as to whether the Minister for Health should be censured over this matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .