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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 7 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 2128 ..

Mr Humphries: Mr Thurston confirmed that.

MR BERRY: Save your interjection. I will refer to that. Today, after the Minister has been challenged, a public servant has written a letter defending his Minister. So what. Mr Speaker, so what if a public servant defends his Minister after his Minister has been found to have committed some sort of serious breach of this Assembly. Nothing surprises me with that. But, even if we took Mr Thurston's words at face value, he is wrong. As an experienced officer, I am sure he knows that he is wrong because we all understand, and I am sure Mr Smyth understands, how the industrial bargaining process works.

You should stop this shabby pretence, Minister. Of course you were given a firm offer by the Transport Workers Union. If you had agreed to the firm offer it would have gone back to the members where it may have been agreed. Then you would have had an agreement. That is how it works. You have offers between the parties, or those negotiating on behalf of the parties. They come together with offers. The Transport Workers Union came together with a firm offer. On the top of this document it says "Without Prejudice", because it is well understood in industrial circles that you have to take it to your members to get it rubber-stamped before it can become an agreement. You attempted yesterday to create the impression that it was the Transport Workers Union's fault, not yours. Your words condemn you, Minister, as Hansard shows.

Your lack of good faith is also evident in your refusal to climb to your feet in this place, admit to your mistake - that is, that you either recklessly or deliberately misled this house - and say, "I am sorry for doing that". Had you done that there would have been no motion and we would not have been on our feet debating the issue. I heard those trying to defend you earlier saying, "No, we heard you say it". Well, only the people on that side heard you say it, only those who wanted to hear you say it, it appears, because nobody over this side heard it. Now people are saying - - -

Mr Humphries: Well, it is in Hansard. You will have to eat your words tomorrow, will you not?

MR BERRY: You should go and have a look at Hansard.

Ms Tucker: Well, what is wrong with saying it again? What is the problem?

Mr Humphries: Because he said it once. Why should he say it twice, Kerrie?

MR BERRY: Why should we bother? If this brave young Minister has apologised once, why cannot he do it again? Is there anything wrong with climbing to your feet and saying, "I am sorry you did not hear me when I apologised this morning."?

MR SPEAKER: Order! It is not surprising that people did not hear others speaking when there is too much noise.

MR BERRY: "I did mislead the house and I am sorry". That is all you have to say, and I, for one, will be first out the door. But no, this Minister will not rise to the occasion. He has not got the courage. He has not yet accepted that he misled.

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