Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 782 ..

MR MOORE (12.16): Mr Speaker, we have had a number of censure motions in this house and I always consider them very serious matters indeed. I have been reluctant to support a number of censure motions. I believe that I have voted against a number of censure motions that have been put by the Labor Opposition. It is the role of an opposition, whenever they can find the opportunity, to put such motions to try to ensure that a government is held accountable. Compared to what happens in many parliaments, it is in some ways a very unusual role that we play on the crossbenches, because in each case we have to consider the merits and listen to the debate particularly carefully. In most parliaments censure motions are put by an opposition and they are defeated by a government which has the majority of members on the floor. It is almost a game. The opposition knows that if they put them up too often they will lose all value and all credibility. If they do not put them up often enough they will not be seen to be doing their job.

In this chamber and other places where there are minority governments the process works very differently. From discussions I have had with my crossbench colleagues this morning, we all take them particularly seriously. That is why it is, Mr Speaker, that I want to look at the three possible ways that I see that a Minister can mislead the house. A Minister can accidentally mislead the house. In fact, Mr Humphries at one stage accidentally misled the house. He came back almost immediately and said to the house, "I have inadvertently misled the house". There have been other occasions as well. Mr Humphries was the first person that I recall doing that in this Assembly. When I say "this Assembly", I mean since 1989. He said, "This was inadvertent. The information I had been given was incorrect. I now know it to be different and therefore I am informing you that this is the reality of the situation. I accidentally misled the house". Providing the Minister informs the house that that is the case, I think the situation is resolved when the Minister corrects an inadvertent mistake.

Then there is deliberate misleading of the house. If a Minister deliberately misleads the house, I believe that they cannot remain as a Minister. Mr Berry is aware that this house considered, although I know that he believes still that he did not, that he deliberately misled it. When that had been found, he resigned from his position, and that was a credit to him as far as that goes. Mr Berry has used the term here - it is the first time I have seen it - "recklessly misleading" the house. My interpretation of "reckless" is that it is a high-risk activity. In other words, you are taking the risk that it might mislead the house. That is what we are dealing with. It is almost as serious as deliberately misleading. It is like saying, "It is a high risk, but it is not likely to mislead. There is enough of a case here to say that what I am providing for the house is most likely to be right, but there are some risks associated with it". That is how I have interpreted the words "recklessly misleading the house" - as a high-risk activity.

I heard Mrs Carnell say, in her defence - I am paraphrasing - "It is not my fault; I just used the wrong model and therefore we got the wrong figures". That was part of her argument. I wonder whether she will be willing to accept that excuse from a contract-driven chief executive officer. What if that officer says, "It is not my fault that I have blown out the budget and that the contract says that we must not blow out the budget. It is not my fault; I was just using the wrong model, and it is the model that my

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .