Page 571 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that an inquiry had been set in place. There is no question as to the propriety of the inquirer. Professor Pearce is seen by everyone in this place as a totally independent and fair inquirer. He has broad terms of reference, which you have before you. They clearly go to the factual matters that have been canvassed.
Mr Berry, in his remarks, will nail many of the misstatements of fact that you have put before this Assembly. But it essentially comes down to members making a judgment on what the true state of facts is and, from that true state of facts, what your views are about Mr Berry's knowledge at certain points of time, in order to make a decision on whether he misled the house. To do that, you are clearly trampling across the commission of inquiry's proper terms of reference. Members should withhold judgment - they should vote against this motion - because to do otherwise would seriously prejudice the future of inquiries or royal commissions in this jurisdiction. Other parliaments have properly exercised reserve in these matters, for good reason. The practice is very clearly there in the texts on parliamentary procedure in Australia. It clearly draws a distinction between two types of inquiry or royal commission. This matter clearly falls within the first category, where parliament should exercise restraint. To take the contrary course is to endorse the Queen against Alice and to say that the correct approach is sentence first, then verdict. "Off with his head", says Mrs Carnell. That is good political point scoring but very dangerous and unsound public policy.
MR KAINE (4.49): It is interesting that the Attorney-General introduced the concept of Alice in Wonderland. I have to wonder whether he is Alice or the rabbit, because quite frankly he just raised an issue which he might well have been better not to raise. The Opposition, in raising this matter, took the view that there are really two different subjects here. One is the deal which the investigating officer is looking into; the other is the Minister's action in this house. We make a distinction between the two.
Mr Connolly, of course, has just muddied the water. If what he says is true - that we should not be looking at this while an inquiry is taking place - then I ask Mr Connolly and Ms Follett: Why has the Minister not stood down while the inquiry is taking place, if this is an inquiry into him? But the fact that he has not done so was justified by Ms Follett earlier on the grounds that this is not an inquiry into Mr Berry; that his competence is not in question; that, therefore, he stays in his job while the inquiry is being done. You cannot have it both ways. Either that inquiry is about Mr Berry or it is not; and, if it is, he should have been required to stand down while it is taking place. You hoisted yourself, Mr Rabbit, with your own petard, I suspect.
Mr Connolly: He stood aside as racing Minister. The inquiry is into his conduct as racing Minister.
MR KAINE: I notice, Madam Speaker, that the concept of listening to speakers quietly has gone out the window now. The Chief Minister was demanding to be heard quietly before.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, Mr Kaine! It is your side that is assisting you. We will proceed in silence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .