Page 1782 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly mentioned, by some of the people making submissions to my current consultative round in the budget preparations. The Canberra Business Council have said in their submission, which is a public document:
To achieve maximum rationalisation of resources and effective coordination and cooperation, emergency service agencies should be amalgamated to the fullest extent possible, and Government action towards achieving this is strongly supported.
I think that puts the position very neatly. A decision has been needed on this matter for some years. The fact that the decision has been delayed for some years indicates only the strength of feeling on both sides. Quite clearly, now that a decision has been made, that feeling has not gone away and there are people who feel slighted, who feel disadvantaged by the decision. That would have been the case no matter who it was decided ought to perform the emergency services.
This debate today reflects nothing more than the fact that there are some people dissatisfied with the decision, that there are still some people who wish to reopen the debate, and of course such an action is open to them at any time. But to try to pretend, as Mr Stevenson says, that the Minister has made the decision in contempt of the clear resolution and intention of this Assembly or, as Mr Humphries says, that he has pre-empted the inquiry and displayed a contemptuous attitude towards the concerns of this house is quite wrong. There was no contempt whatsoever expressed. There was absolutely no intention in the debate on the inquiry to reopen the question of who performed the emergency services.
I think it is regrettable that the issue has been raised yet again as a motion of no confidence in Mr Connolly. Mr Connolly has made the decision - and a difficult decision it was, too. It was a decision that had evaded successive governments, a decision that had evaded them because of the heat on both sides, obviously. Once Mr Connolly had made that decision, I believe that all members of this house ought to support him in that decision. We have had calls from members opposite for just such a decision, and I have read out the quotes to members. But, the decision having been made, now is the time to get on with making that decision work in the best interests of this Territory.
Mr Connolly, as is usually the case with Mr Connolly, has acted decisively, has acted thoughtfully and, I believe, has acted with the best interests of this Territory at heart. I think he ought to be congratulated on having taken that decision - a difficult decision, a decision which would obviously involve him in public debate on the matter. Nevertheless, he took it, and he has stuck by it; and that, I think, is his trademark as a Minister. It is a very admirable quality indeed, in my view.
I express full confidence in Mr Connolly as a Minister. I believe that the no-confidence motion and the amendment to condemn the Minister ought not to be supported by this house. This decision was needed, it has been needed for years, and it was taken by Mr Connolly. We ought to support him in it, instead of reopening the debate on spurious grounds. It was quite clear at the time of the debate on this inquiry that the motion was prospective. It was stated explicitly by various speakers. If some members choose not to listen to explicit statements, that is their own lookout; but they ought not to charge other members, particularly Mr Connolly in this case, with ignoring the wish of the Assembly. He has not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .