Page 2004 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: I think it is a relevant point to make, and one should not get impatient with my making it. Who was responsible? The point that Mr De Domenico made, that Mr Berry appointed the board, is highly relevant. When I get a chance to read the report, that is the particular issue that I will look at. I feel that the other two points have been answered.
The Liberal members and their staff, who must have spent thousands of hours working on this, deserve to be commended by everyone in this Assembly. Were it not for them, this issue would not have been raised. We have had an acknowledgment by the Assembly, and it cannot be questioned, that Mr Berry did mislead the house. Secondly, with the sacking of the board, and the inquiry report, the deal should not have been entered into. Things were not done correctly. As we heard earlier, people in the community who tried to get something done were not received when they tried to take the matter up with the Labor Party. Who would say that the Liberal Party and their staff, and these other people, should not be commended?
MR MOORE (4.39): Mr Stevenson presumes that he will get a second chance to speak on this matter. That will be interesting. Madam Speaker, good faith has been spoken of throughout this debate, and Professor Pearce said at paragraph 206 of his report:
Mr Berry, his Departmental officers, ACTTAB officials and the various advisers to these parties acted in good faith ...
Good faith is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about, more than anything, is competence and incompetence. That is the issue that was dealt with primarily by Professor Pearce.
I think that the first positive aspect that needs to be dealt with here is the Chief Minister's responsibility in setting up this inquiry. Setting up the inquiry was an appropriate, responsible and competent act on her part, and as a result of that act we are today debating the issues that arise from the inquiry. It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that, if everybody acted in good faith, we need to look at how that has an impact on both the board and Mr Berry. Mr Berry has acted in good faith and the board has acted in good faith, but the board has been sacked and the Chief Minister says that Mr Berry has been cleared by all the evidence given during the Pearce inquiry. You cannot have it both ways. Madam Speaker, as did Ms Szuty, I want to distinguish between the issue of misleading the Assembly and the issue dealt with by the Pearce inquiry.
Mr Berry: Squirm as you may.
MR MOORE: The issue of misleading has been dealt with and does not need to be reiterated here. Mr Berry clearly did mislead the Assembly and that vote has been taken.
Mr Berry: You are squirming, Michael.
MR MOORE: In terms of competence, the question of the appointment of the board goes directly to Mr Berry. Madam Speaker, there is no squirming. One of the first issues taken up was the probity checks of VITAB directors and shareholders.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .