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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1826 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I come to this debate with a history of being the balance-of-power Independent on the one occasion when a similar motion has succeeded, the motion against Mr Berry. On that occasion the bar was set high, and charges were specified and proved by those who brought the allegations. I would not vote for a motion simply because I had a political wish to see a Minister out or another Minister in. I would preserve the stability of government regardless of policy or politics unless the Minister's conduct had been reprehensible. On that occasion the accusers had prepared their evidence and had proved their case against Mr Berry, which was that he had misled the Assembly. It was classic reprehensible conduct, and that is why the motion won my support.

Mr Wood mentioned a couple of other no-confidence motions of the First Assembly, but we know, and it was always clear, that those motions were not about reprehensible conduct. Mr Wood knows it. They were not about where the bar was set. They were simply about the numbers. A group of people had the numbers to form government and they were going to do it, and the tool to do it was a no-confidence motion. There was no pretence about anything else at the time.

This current motion has not proceeded in the same clinical and dignified manner as that moved against Mr Berry. The accusers have only rhetoric and abuse. The case is sloppy. The facts, when examined, do not support it. The accusers are acting to secure political advantage and are motivated by a predetermined desire to remove the Government. It is not a justifiable move against any personal conduct which is reprehensible. Proof, being totally absent, has been replaced with repeated propaganda and allegations. Dr Goebbels spoke of the method of the big lie.

Mr Quinlan: The editor of the Canberra Times.

MR MOORE: I hear the interjection from Mr Quinlan, who says, "The editor of the Canberra Times". I think it is entirely unfair, Mr Quinlan, that you would refer to the editor of the Canberra Times as Dr Goebbels. It would be sensible for you to stand up and withdraw. You do not want to withdraw? Okay. Dr Goebbels spoke of the method of the big lie. The bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed.

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, "Goebbels-speak" has been ruled on before. Mr Moore imputes that the Opposition speaks - - -

MR SPEAKER: No, I do not think he does impute at all. There is no point of order. I was not aware that there was any imputation going on.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, I was just quoting Dr Goebbels. It was Mr Quinlan who made an allegation about the editor of the Canberra Times, so Mr Berry's point of order is actually about Mr Quinlan, and it would give Mr Quinlan the opportunity to withdraw, which would seem to me to be a very sensible thing.

MR SPEAKER: I did not hear the reference to the editor of the Canberra Times. I suppose it is up to Mr Quinlan whether he wishes to withdraw it or not. But I do not uphold Mr Berry's point of order in relation to Mr Moore's comments. Mr Moore is talking about Dr Goebbels. He is not suggesting that he is in this Assembly.

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