Page 4192 - Week 14 - Thursday, 25 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Jensen: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: That is a clear imputation.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that is an imputation, I think.
MR MOORE: I withdraw any imputation. The clear indication is that we have two Ministers who are, in effect, trusted with millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. Under the circumstances there is a question, there is a smell, about this that would really make us wonder. It reinforces the 60 Minutes notion of the Chief Minister. Are these the 60 Minutes Ministers that he would prefer to do without? Clearly, he is content with the performance of the Minister from his party, Mr Humphries. But following the revelation of these documents there is a certain smell, and that certain smell is best got rid of by the vacation from this house of Mr Collaery and Mr Duby.
Ministerial Travel Allowances : Member's Motor Vehicle
MR CONNOLLY (5.37): The issues that Mr Moore has raised this afternoon in the adjournment debate are very serious. I would have expected some statement from the Government today on the extraordinary revelation at lunchtime that Ministers had accepted funds without lawful authority. I have said publicly today that the Ministers in question - - -
Mr Jensen: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: there has been no proof of that. Once again, it is a matter that has yet to be considered by the Estimates Committee.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I think you might be right, Mr Jensen; there probably has been no proof of that yet.
MR CONNOLLY: I withdraw that comment, Mr Deputy Speaker.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Connolly. Carry on.
MR CONNOLLY: The revelation this afternoon was that the legal advice in relation to the proper course of action for reimbursement of expenses for travel overseas was not followed in relation to the two Ministers travelling, although it must be said that the Ministers were acting as they were advised by their department and, I am prepared to say, in good faith.
It does, however, raise a question of a technical breach of the provisions of the self-government Act, a question of sufficient importance, I would have thought, to require a clear explanation from the Government or some form of investigation by the Speaker. It may well be that the proper answer is that Ministers acting in good faith are not in breach of those provisions of the Act when they accept moneys in a way which they were advised by their officers was perfectly appropriate. But it is a very
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .