Page 1784 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I submit that the Minister has not defended himself from the position put by Mr Stevenson and by Mr Humphries. He simply tried to justify his actions. They cannot be justified in terms of the motion that was put and supported by a majority of the members of this house only a matter of a month ago. It is totally unconscionable for the Minister to come here and argue, "I had already made up my mind, so it really did not matter what the Assembly said". It is equally unconscionable for the Chief Minister to get up and defend him.
As Mr Humphries has suggested, I do not think we should go so far as to censure the Minister and require his resignation. I think that is probably a bit of overkill. But I think the Minister and the Government need to know what we think about him and it. In other words, we do not hold you in very high regard over your handling of this matter. We think that, while talking about community consultation and the like, you have shown your true colours. You are not interested in it in the slightest. You do not want to know what we want.
I support the amendment put forward by Mr Humphries. I think it is little enough, in terms of the wording, to express clearly the view of this Assembly as to the way the Minister and the Government have handled this matter. I suggest that Ms Szuty might like to reconsider. She supported the motion in the first place. The Minister did not do what we told him to do. She got up here a few minutes ago and actually attacked the Minister over it, but she will not support the motion. How long can you sit on the fence on such an issue? Either you support the Minister or you do not. Ms Szuty supported the motion when it was put to the Assembly in the first place, and she spoke for the motion today, even though she said that she would not vote to support it. Perhaps Ms Szuty needs to consider just what her position is. Does she want to have a reputation for equivocation, like that enjoyed by this Government?
Mr Connolly: Equivocation? But you are condemning me for acting.
MR KAINE: You should have acted a year ago, mate. That is the point.
MR STEVENSON (4.07), in reply: There was one reason and one reason only why the motion was put by Mr Humphries on 13 May, and that was the decision, as Mr Connolly says, made weeks ago that the police rescue service would be passed over to the Fire Brigade. The attempted denial of that fact by Mr Connolly, by the Chief Minister, by Mr Moore, and by Ms Szuty is bizarre in the extreme, as a reading of Hansard will show. Often in this parliament the Labor Party pull out their little tactic manual. The tactic manual says: When faced with a problem, rather than debate the matter, what you do is smirk, smile, guffaw, and pretend that it is not a problem. Say that you are bored, suggest to other members of the Assembly, "You are not going to vote for this? This is just a waste of time. What rubbish!".
Let us look at what the Chief Minister said. There was no question that the inquiry should reopen the decision about the police service being handed over to the Fire Brigade. The Chief Minister says that there was no question about it. Not only was there a question; that is what the reading of the debate shows. I consider that there was no question whatsoever that that is what the passage of the motion meant. To deny that is an indication of the statement by the Police Association and its validity, "A contemptible government does not govern, it dictates". Where does that miss the point? Is that not the case?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .