Page 282 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
soon as the legal complications were resolved. That was credited to the ACT Attorney-General. According to that report, he had a meeting with Mr Dowd and the royal commissioner, Mr Gyles. He was quoted as saying:
This inquiry can blow away the cobwebs and either put down the allegations for all time or, otherwise, identify the malefactors and ensure that they won't be around to impede the resurgence in the building industry.
Again, there was no evidence offered; there never has been, all the way along. It is merely rhetoric. As has been said by others, it is copycatting what is going on in New South Wales. My colleague Mr Connolly rightly said on 14 August that there was no need for an investigation into the ACT building industry. He said that these royal commissions tend to make a life of their own, and Mr Moore has raised the issue of costs. I think that is something relevant for the Government to consider. It has not raised those issues here.
MR KAINE (Chief Minister) (11.50): I am not going to speak for very long. I have been quite surprised at the change in the tone of the debate upon Mr Berry getting to his feet. Up until that time we were talking about the merits of the legislation before us, but Mr Berry spent his entire time talking about a particular case that might at some future time be subject to this legislation. I think that he talked about members on this side of the house being tetchy. It is quite obvious that, if anybody is tetchy on this issue, it is Mr Berry. One might well ask what prompted him to come into this house and launch into the tirade, in defence of trade unions, to which this particular legislation has no relevance whatsoever. It is quite clear that the Government has introduced this legislation because there is a deficiency in the legislation that we inherited from that Government. It is necessary that the old Enquiry Act be brought up to be relevant in the 1990s. It is also important that this Government and any future government - including one of yours, if you ever form one again - have the power to appoint a royal commission if it is ever needed.
I am not going to get into a debate about royal commissions. The distinction between a royal commission and other forms of inquiry that the Government might undertake has been clearly made. I think even Mr Connolly recognises that there is a great difference. In the minds of the public there is certainly a great difference.
Mr Berry: No, there is not; not the ones who read the Canberra Times.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Berry!
MR KAINE: I am not debating with you at the moment, Mr Berry. You had your go. Be quiet.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .