Page 2016 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The directors of VITAB are Mr Kolomanski, Mr McMahon and Oak Limited (a company registered in Vanuatu) ... VITAB has resolved that Mr Dowd will replace Oak Limited when he obtains the required residential status.
Madam Speaker, Mr Connolly talked about honesty before. I would expect some honesty from this Government in conceding that almost everything the Liberal Party said about the VITAB contract has been borne out and has been proved to be true. Almost everything we said about that contract has been proved to be true by this report.
Mr Wood: Everything you said about Mr Berry? No.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Wood raises a question about Mr Berry's role. It is clear in this report that Professor Pearce did not consider the role of Mr Berry's statements in this house because that was not in his terms of reference. Mr Connolly made the point that the Pearce inquiry was not entitled to consider the question of what Mr Berry said in this house, because of parliamentary privilege. I will come to the point made by Ms Szuty and Mr Moore in a moment. The fact of the matter is that he specifically excluded that particular issue of whether Mr Berry had or had not misled the house. (Extension of time granted) I thank members. I will again quote a section that has been quoted before:
Mr Berry acted properly in his role as Minister in relation to the VITAB contract but was not well advised. He would not have been under any obligation to resign as a Minister for events that flowed from that contract. This finding bears no relationship to the motion of the Legislative Assembly expressing no confidence in Mr Berry.
In other words, Professor Pearce considered that it was not within his terms of reference to consider the question of what had been said in this place in terms of the motion against Mr Berry on misleading the house. I am disappointed in one respect by that finding because the submission that I made to the Pearce inquiry was that Mr Berry should be held accountable under the principle of ministerial responsibility for decisions made about the VITAB contract, and what flowed from that should therefore be his responsibility in the sense of that doctrine. I cited to Professor Pearce the pay TV report of last year. I quoted the principles that had been set out in that Senate inquiry concerning the reasons why you would be able to find that a Minister was accountable under the doctrine. That included the four principles which justify a finding that a Minister was responsible. One of those was deliberate misleading, either in the house or outside it. The point I made was that Mr Berry had misled both the house and the broader community about that matter.
It may be, in the light of what Professor Pearce has said, and in the light of what has been said in this chamber, Madam Speaker, when the matter of the submissions that were sent to the Pearce inquiry was raised in this house on the last sitting occasion, that it was not appropriate to refer to what had been said in the house. I do note that Professor Pearce also makes comment on that subject. The position is not quite so clear cut, I might say,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .