Page 615 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (8.42): Madam Speaker, this is our first day in a new and dignified Legislative Assembly, in a building that is modest but appropriate. I am sorry that on the first day in this place the Opposition has come up with old but by now familiar tactics. I think they have been quite undignified, inappropriate and immodest. It is certainly the role of the Opposition to challenge and to question, to probe deeply, and we all acknowledge that; but it is also the role of the Opposition to be responsible and not merely political. Today and tonight we have seen them being quite political. They have argued persistently through this debate that this question of misleading the Assembly is a separate issue from the inquiry by Professor Pearce. But what is Professor Pearce going to do? He is going to look at a whole range of issues and in the end he is going to comment on whether this was a good deal for the ACT. The Opposition made great note of the fact that Mr Berry had said that this is a good deal for the ACT, and surely, in the end, that is what Professor Pearce is going to judge - was this a good deal? Why then do we have this claim tonight for a judgment?
Think back to one of your colleagues in another Assembly when some of my colleagues in that same Assembly in New South Wales passed judgment on Nick Greiner. I acknowledge that it was the Labor Opposition that pushed it. That Assembly voted and said, "Nick Greiner, you are out". What happened just a short time later? Nick Greiner was absolutely exonerated. What are you going to do, having moved a motion of no confidence, if you kick Wayne Berry out tonight and in a few weeks' time Professor Pearce comes out and says, as he may well do, "That was a good deal for the ACT."? There is a very significant difference between the Greiner case and the Berry case in that in the first instance the ICAC had passed a judgment critical of Greiner. We do not have that here with Wayne Berry. At least there was some justification for the New South Wales Parliament to vote as it did. There is absolutely no justification for any process of condemnation of Wayne Berry. So I ask the Independents to consider very carefully where they think they will be if Professor Pearce says that VITAB was a good deal for the ACT. That is the key point that Mr De Domenico made. Where will you be?
The Chief Minister a little time ago made the point that this motion of censure or admonition - was it admonition that Mr Connolly faced? - is a debased currency. Once a month, it seems to me, the Opposition raises a question of no confidence, censure or whatever. I know that quite well. There is no justification. You are debasing the currency. This debate tonight is in that vein. It is becoming a regular tactic by the Liberals as part of their campaign, and I think it has no value any more.
Madam Speaker, let me run through the main issues. I believe that it is quite clear from this debate that the issues are not always as simple as the Opposition would have us believe. The debate, to those who are still considering their point of view, at least must sound a note of caution for them. I think Mr Cornwell gave the lead to the Independents in this Assembly. I remember only two of the words that he used. Speaking of Wayne Berry, he used the words "integrity" and "honesty". Mr Cornwell, could you remind me of the other couple that you used of similar note?
Mr Cornwell: I said "reckless" and "deliberate".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .