Page 1775 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We announced this decision many months ago. It was clear that it was proceeding. Throughout the debate on an inquiry we made it clear that we were proceeding down this path. I made it clear; Mr Berry made it clear. Mr Moore, in his comments in the debate, made it very clear that his support for the resolution was contingent upon the resolution being forward looking. If I had refused to hold an inquiry I would stand condemned and Mr Stevenson would have grounds for moving a motion. I have not refused to conduct an inquiry. I said during the debate, "If the Assembly votes for an inquiry, an inquiry it shall have".
Since I have been back in Canberra, I have been working with my departmental officers to find an appropriate person who would be seen to be outside the ruck of Canberra politics and not involved at any stage of their background with either the Fire Service or the police service. Inevitably, if we had somebody who had at some stage served on a fire board or had some connection with the police, they would be alleged to be biased one way or the other. We have settled on a very well-respected former Commonwealth departmental secretary and Administrator of Norfolk Island. That inquiry will proceed; it will be resourced, as is required by the terms of the Assembly resolution.
The Assembly resolution did not call upon the Government not to proceed with this amalgamation.
Mr Humphries: Come on, Terry!
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Humphries knows that, because Mr Humphries was in negotiations with Mr Moore on the terms of the resolution. As Mr Moore said in the debate, Mr Humphries and he had a discussion and there was some variation to Mr Humphries's original resolution so that it would be in a form that Mr Moore could support, given his requirement that it be a forward looking resolution and that it not recanvass announced government decisions.
Mr Humphries, if you believe that it is the will of this Assembly that the rationalisation not proceed, you move a motion to that effect. If members of this Assembly believe that I have flouted the will of the Assembly in relation to this decision, move a motion directing me not to proceed. If that motion is carried, I will comply with the resolution. No such motion has even been moved in this Assembly, let alone carried. The resolution that was passed on 13 May was a resolution for a forward looking inquiry. The Government took the view that that was unnecessary, that we had already had a number of inquiries and there was nothing to be gained by doing it again, but the Assembly in its collective wisdom disagreed with the Government on that occasion. Sometimes these things happen. I said at the time that we would comply with the resolution, and we have.
The Assembly did not call upon me not to proceed with the transfer of responsibility for road rescue from the police to the Fire Brigade. Maybe Mr Humphries would want me not to proceed. Maybe Mr Stevenson would want me not to proceed. Maybe both the Liberal Party and Mr Stevenson would vote in favour of a resolution directing me not to proceed with this amalgamation, but it was not the resolution before the Assembly and it was not the resolution passed by the Assembly. I challenge you, if you feel that way, to so move and test the will of the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .