Page 1780 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have proposed an amendment to this motion. Despite the seriousness with which we view what the Government has done, we do take the point made, I think, by Mr Moore that we threaten to debase the currency of censure motions and no-confidence motions by using them on a daily basis. We also accept that the Government has to exercise some latitude in the way it conducts these matters. I must say that that latitude has been a rather abused privilege in this case, in my personal opinion. I therefore formally move:
Omit the last paragraph, substitute "This Assembly condemns the Minister and the Government for pre-empting this inquiry and for the contemptuous attitude they have displayed towards the concerns of this House as expressed in its resolution of 13 May.
I think we would all regret the circumstances whereby the Assembly's clear view on 13 May that we put on the table the question of police rescue services - it was very clearly the central point of the debate - has been put to one side by this Government with complete contempt, with contumelious disregard, for the view of the Assembly. It exhibits either very serious contempt of the Assembly or a very unfortunate desire to take advantage of hairsplitting interpretations of words to say, "Well, you did not actually say that we should not make this decision; you merely said that we should look into the circumstances of the decision". The distinction is immaterial.
MS SZUTY (3.49): Madam Speaker, I do not support the no-confidence motion in Mr Connolly proposed by Mr Stevenson; nor will I be supporting Mr Humphries's amendment to that motion. I must admit that I am a little ambivalent about Mr Humphries's amendment, but I have decided that I will not support it. It was always my belief that the Government's intentions to transfer the responsibilities of road rescue to the Fire Brigade were clear, as were Mr Moore's, and I think those intentions were made clear during the debate in the last Assembly sittings on the motion to set up an inquiry into the rescue services. However, I believe that the Minister could have handled this matter a little more constructively. In announcing the transfer of responsibilities, the Minister could have announced simultaneously the appointment of Mr Bruce MacDonald as the chair of the inquiry and the terms of reference of the inquiry into rescue services, as he has done today.
In conclusion, as I do not wish to dwell on this no-confidence motion longer than is necessary, I believe that the Government's announcement on the transfer of rescue services to the Fire Brigade is not unexpected. However, I do believe, as I have said, that it could have been handled by the Minister more constructively. That is all I wish to say.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (3.51): Madam Speaker, I rise to support my Minister, Mr Connolly, in his actions and to urge members to reject not just the motion put forward by Mr Stevenson but also the amendment moved by Mr Humphries. Mr Connolly has spoken most eloquently in his own defence, as he usually does, and I feel that he has covered all that needs to be covered in this debate. I would say to members that, at the time of the debate on 13 May last, it was abundantly clear that the motion to hold an inquiry was prospective in nature. Indeed, that fact was reflected in the comments of a number of speakers, not least Mr Moore, whose very support for the motion was "dependent on the premise that it is forward looking, that the purpose of this inquiry is not, as Mr Connolly says, to open up old wounds". Mr Moore continued:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .