Page 1772 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly, on 10 June, announced that the police rescue squad would be disbanded by 1 July and its major metropolitan functions passed over to the Fire Brigade. That is a clear contempt of a decision, a resolution, of this parliament. It cannot be said that there was any doubt as to exactly what the intention of this Assembly was when we passed the motion. Once again, let me quote the relevant part of the motion we passed. Paragraph (2)(a) states:
determination of the most appropriate structure for the provision of services, including whether services should be collocated, consolidated or otherwise rationalised;
What the Assembly resolved at that time was that an independent inquiry should advise on which of those should take place. The Minister agreed to hold the inquiry, but totally negated the spirit of the inquiry by ordering the police commissioner to announce the demise of the police rescue squad and the passing of its major functions to the Fire Brigade. This is a clear breach of ministerial responsibility. In a situation in this parliament where a Minister makes a decision and the parliament then says that it does not believe that the decision is in the best interests of the people of Canberra, for the Minister to then ignore the resolution of this parliament is a serious breach of his ministerial responsibility.
Mr Lamont: Doesn't he want it abolished?
MR STEVENSON: Mr Lamont asks do I not want it abolished. The answer is, yes, indeed; and, if I can assist by abolishing them one at a time, so be it.
Mr Lamont: Yes, but not through boredom, Dennis.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Lamont might be bored to hear that the Minister holds in contempt the resolution of 13 May by this Assembly and has decided to continue on regardless with his own personal agenda. Mr Lamont might consider that to be boring, but I do not believe that the people of Canberra would think so. I do not believe that members of this Assembly would think so either. It is a most serious matter to disregard the Assembly, and that is what Mr Connolly has done. It has happened before in parliaments in Australia and Ministers have been made to resign. The Minister should resign in this instance for holding the people of the ACT, and the resolution of this parliament, in contempt.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (3.21): Madam Speaker, a motion of no confidence in a Minister is a very serious move, and an assertion that a Minister has expressed contempt for a resolution of this Assembly is an equally serious allegation. If the Government is not looking as though it is quaking at the knees on this, or taking it very seriously, it is because Mr Stevenson seems to be setting a daily pattern in this Assembly of motions of no confidence in me. The week that I had leave from this Assembly and was out of the country I was thinking, "My goodness, it is Tuesday; I should be facing another no-confidence motion from Dennis".
Madam Speaker, I take a motion of no confidence very seriously, and I particularly take seriously any assertion that I have acted in contempt of a decision of this Assembly. Mr Stevenson, it is simply not so. If this Assembly had resolved that the transfer of responsibility for road rescue from the police to the Fire Brigade not proceed, it would not have proceeded. Mr Stevenson, I always will act on the basis of a resolution of this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .