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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1280 ..

MR SPEAKER: Order! It being 5.00 pm, I propose the question:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

Mr Smyth: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

Debate resumed.

MR WOOD: Mr Speaker, I think it is quite clear from all that that we have been misled, and we have been deliberately misled. Of that there is no doubt. Having said that, I will move on to my second speech which dovetails into Mr Moore's speech. A little earlier today Mr Stefaniak was talking about recklessly misleading. Well, I am going to move to a higher authority than Mr Stefaniak. I am going to refer to Mr Moore on the subject of recklessly misleading. Let me give a bit of context to this. I want to quote Mr Moore on a no-confidence motion actually.

On 29 May 1990 there was an attempt to censure Mr Duby - it was not successful - concerning an incident where he did not give a blood sample to the police. I think Mr Moore quite accurately set down some of the principles about no-confidence motions and censure motions when he said in that speech, "What is at stake is the credibility of the Assembly". That is how important it is. I hope you pay attention, Mr Smyth. Further, Mr Moore said that Mr Duby's credibility had been doubted, that the Alliance Government's credibility was at risk, and that the Assembly's credibility was at risk. They are good principles to establish and I support what Mr Moore said.

Let us go to another no-confidence motion and Mr Moore's comments. There was a no-confidence motion moved against Mr Connolly on 1 December 1994 and this is what Mr Moore said:

Where a case of deliberately misleading the house has occurred, there is no choice but for this house to demand the highest standard and to say, "You cannot mislead this house. You cannot mislead this house and be a Minister".

(Extension of time granted) That was a case of deliberately misleading the Assembly. I think such a case has been well established today. It has been. But let us put a little bit of reserve in. It is not necessary, but let us do this and let us go to the question of recklessly misleading the house. I refer you again to the motion that Mr Stanhope moved this morning. I will repeat it:

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