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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1894 ..

Mr Humphries: He was the Minister.

MR MOORE: I realise that he was the Minister.

Mr Berry: I will take over if you like and I will find out for you.

MR MOORE: Thank you for your kind offer, Mr Berry. One would presume that a Minister would be trying to find out how a mistake happened, so that it could not possibly happen again. The second matter that I think Mrs Carnell ought to explain to the Assembly is why this did not come out in the Booz Allen report, and a series of other inquiries into the health system on which we spent millions of dollars. There are important questions coming out of this issue that need to be answered.

Mr Speaker, when I sat down in the Assembly this morning, there was the smell of a censure motion around the place. The smell of a censure motion always does the heart and soul of crossbenchers a power of good.

Mr Osborne: Especially when Mr Berry is censured.

MR MOORE: As Mr Osborne mentions to me, when it is Mr Berry the temptation is absolutely huge. It is sheer joy being able to censure Mr Berry if there is something substantial in it. Mr Speaker, if Mr Berry has responsibility in this area and Mrs Carnell has effectively sat on this information for the same sort of period, then the censure should go both ways.

I have listened to and considered the contributions of all speakers - other than Mr De Domenico, whose contribution was really only to try to criticise Mr Wood. Although Mr De Domenico speaks eloquently, he just does not make any valid points. It seems to me that a substantial enough case has not been made for me to support a censure motion against either person. I think that that emphasises for us why, when allegations are raised, it is important to bring them to the Assembly and deal with them as quickly as possible. I think the real lesson for us in dealing with this issue today is that when allegations are made at question time - - -

Mrs Carnell: But you are not suggesting that the allegations are not right.

MR MOORE: Mrs Carnell says that the allegations were not made.

Mrs Carnell: No. I said that you are not suggesting that the allegations are not right. You are not suggesting that there was not double-counting.

MR MOORE: I do not suggest that there was not double-counting. I can see where Mrs Carnell is coming from. The question is not so much whether there was double-counting as whether the Minister should have known, as we expected her to know in the case of the VMOs, when we censured her for not knowing that the model she used was wrong. I think the two cases are substantially different. They are at entirely different levels. Whilst I can see her perspective and why she would like to see them converge

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