NOES, 9 . . Page.. 531 ..
We were also asked whether we had actually listened to the allegations. We spoke to all parties concerned - not about the allegations or the nature of them, but about the processes, because we did not want to be put in the position of judging the allegations. We are also extremely unhappy to hear the discussion around there being only one allegation. Obviously, one allegation is as important as any number. It has happened in previous cases that once these things become public more people come forward with complaints. I do not accept as a strong argument the point that, if one person can make an allegation and disrupt the Government, therefore many people can do the same thing. If you have confidence in the role of the Human Rights Office, then I would imagine that it would become very obvious very quickly if such allegations were made for those reasons. That is not an argument that we would agree with.
The intent of this motion, I repeat, is to make clear the seriousness with which the Greens and, we believe, the wider community view this issue and to urge the Government to consider the impact their actions have on the perceptions of this place by the wider community. In the few weeks that we have been here I have heard various people speak about how important it is that this place be held in high regard and about how that has not been the case in the past. It has certainly been the view of many people in the community that it is not appropriate that we have Ministers working when allegations have been made against them, whether they be civil or criminal. We do understand the difference, Mr Humphries. It is not something we misunderstand; we just have a different view from you as to the approach that should be taken.
That the motion (Ms Tucker’s) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
Mr De Domenico
Question so resolved in the negative.