Page 1777 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly again and again, "Why do you not take action? You are responsible for the vote. Take the action". For him now to take the action and for me to stand up and say, "No, you cannot do that", perhaps because I think he has done it the wrong way or because I am dissatisfied with something, would be churlish indeed. He has actually taken some action. Because he has taken some action, I shall be supportive. This silly stunt is not going to succeed. That is the reality of the situation.
The motion was very carefully drafted to ensure that I would not be churlish, to ensure that the inquiry would be forward looking. Mr Connolly had already made it clear that that amalgamation was going to occur in the sense that the police road rescue service was no longer going to continue with road rescue in the ACT. That is why the motion came about. The reason we would not have the motion that Mr Connolly now challenges the Assembly to put, the motion that the service be reinstated, is that I would not support it and Labor would not support it, and there are the numbers. That is why the motion was not put in that way in the initial instance. To come along now and suggest that setting up an inquiry that does not reverse that decision is grounds for a no-confidence motion in the Minister is just nonsense.
This is typical of what we are seeing from Mr Stevenson over these last few sitting weeks. The difficulty with it is that we will be tempted, when we see another no-confidence motion from Mr Stevenson, to say that we have had enough of this crying wolf business and we are going to move that the motion be put. Nobody wants to do that. We want to ensure that members have the opportunity to present an appropriate view about a Minister who they consider has acted in an improper way. But this is hardly grounds for another no-confidence motion.
It really is quite beyond the pale to have these sorts of inadequate no-confidence motions being directed at a Minister who, for once, has actually taken some action, in accordance with the will of the Assembly. There have been discussions in the Assembly time and time again, from the Liberals particularly, about looking after funds, about ensuring that there are more police on the beat. When the Minister actually takes some action to achieve those goals, what are we supposed to do? Support a no-confidence motion in him? It is absolutely ridiculous.
MR HUMPHRIES (3.39): Madam Speaker, both Mr Connolly and Mr Moore are engaged in a very serious and very determined case of hairsplitting here. I have read very carefully the motion of the Assembly on 13 May, and I want to read some parts of it into the record again so that people can make up their own minds, from reading the transcripts of these proceedings, just what it was that was decided by the Assembly on that day. The motion reads:
This Assembly calls on the Government to conduct an inquiry into the provision of emergency services in the Territory, including police, fire, ambulance and road rescue services.
So we have here a call for an inquiry into all these things, an inquiry into road rescue services in the ACT, a decision to make that inquiry cover all those elements of emergency services in the ACT. The motion continues:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .