Page 1078 - Week 04 - Thursday, 1 April 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
motions proposed, both by Mr Stevenson and by Mr Humphries, indicate a weakening in their currency, as Mr Connolly has also alluded to, and a loss in their effectiveness and power. I believe, Madam Speaker, that this Assembly must consider censure motions more seriously and not waste members' time in this fashion.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (3.59): Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. The issue that Mr Stevenson has raised is not of sufficient import, in my view, to warrant a censure motion, regardless of whether you agree with Mr Stevenson's point of view or not. I consider censure motions an extremely serious matter and I believe that they should be confined to actions of a Minister where such actions would call into question that Minister's ability to continue in the portfolio. Mr Stevenson, in raising this issue, has raised no such doubts in my mind, none whatsoever, and clearly he has not raised any in the minds of other members of the chamber either.
It is a fact, Madam Speaker, that all members here are at perfect liberty to accept or decline any invitation that we receive. It is also a fact that in declining an invitation it is the custom to do so with the utmost courtesy that one can muster, regardless of the circumstances. I think that everybody in this chamber exhibits that courtesy, and in exhibiting that courtesy, as Mr Humphries pointed out, you are not always telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There are diplomatic imperatives in this job and being polite to one's constituents is very much part of that. Madam Speaker, in any case, I find that there is no great inconsistency between what Mr Connolly said in his written communications and his reasons for declining the invitation.
I would like, finally, to say, Madam Speaker, in respect of Mr Stevenson's assertion that Mr Williams has been defamed or maligned, that I really believe that, especially in a vigorous debate, we must make allowance for people's use of the English language. It is quite clear that members in this chamber differ enormously in the way that they use language, in the strength of the views that they express and the way that they express them. We must make allowance for that, just as we must make allowance for different members' quite different inferences from any given piece of correspondence. That is clearly what has occurred as well.
I suspect that what we are really seeing here from Mr Stevenson is part of his endless quest for a constituency. I believe that Mr Stevenson may be feeling that the abolish slogan is wearing a bit thin, now that he is well into his second term in office as an Abolish Self Government member. I think that the Abolish Self Government slogan cannot really be working terribly well. It certainly lacks credibility after all these years. I imagine also that the recent run for the abolish team in the Federal election did not give him much encouragement to continue with that constituency. Mr Stevenson has also run particular issues very strenuously, again in an attempt to establish or garner a constituency in the ACT, most notably the X-rated video and pornography issues. It is his right as a member to raise those issues, to appeal to people who share his views and to seek their support. In his current attitude towards domestic violence and towards the rights of women, I think Mr Stevenson is perhaps on a rather fruitless search. I feel that the kinds of attitudes or sentiments that have been displayed in Mr Stevenson's utterances on domestic violence will not win him wide support in this community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .