Page 1785 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do not believe for one moment that Mr Connolly believes what he said. I do not believe for one moment that the Chief Minister believes what she said. I believe that it is done to cover up the truth of the matter, which is so obvious that any schoolchild would know it simply by reading the debate. I am absolutely certain, regardless of what they may say to their masters, that anybody listening to this debate would well understand what the debate is and the absolutely unconscionable action to deny that the Assembly passed the motion it did.
Let us look at some of the points in the debate on 13 May. It refers to the "determination of the most appropriate structure for the provision of services, including whether services should be collocated, consolidated or otherwise rationalised" - and the Chief Minister says that there is no question about it. It talks about "emergency services in the Territory, including police, fire, ambulance and road rescue services" - and the Chief Minister says that there is no question about it, that it had nothing to do with that. Mr Humphries put the debate very clearly. He moved the motion, and then he said:
The key question we need to ask ourselves is whether the changes being proposed by the Government in respect in particular of the decision to phase out or reduce the capacity of the police rescue service to conduct road rescues in the ACT are capable of reducing cost without an unacceptable loss of quality in the services offered to the people of the Territory.
I read out all these points earlier. The debate was made clear. Is it suggested that we should say to the Minister, "We do not really like it; we do not really think that is okay"? This was a dictatorial act, as the Police Association quite correctly indicated, showing total disregard and contempt for a decision by this Assembly. What does the word "contempt" mean? Part of the definition is "a mental attitude in which a thing is considered as of little account". It would appear that the motion passed by this Assembly, according to Mr Connolly's mental attitude, is of little account.
What will the people of Canberra who know about this situation think of a Labor Party that ignores a direction by this parliament? What will they think of members of this Assembly who will not hold that that particular contemptible action is worthy of a motion of no confidence? What will the people of Canberra think when they find that an inquiry was held but that Mr Connolly has made a decision on the matter about which the inquiry was held and it is already over? Mr Humphries, quite rightly, said, "Why bother now?".
I find it quite bizarre. It is a simple case of Alice in Wonderland. I find it appalling that anyone could let you get away with saying things that I bet my last dollar you do not believe. You sit there and smile and shake your head, but you are far too intelligent to believe the guff that you came out with. The fact that Rosemary Follett would stand up and say the same thing is appalling, although I noticed that once or twice you did it with a smile. There you go again.
Once again, it was a quite remarkable decision. If we have a situation where people in this parliament are not prepared to uphold the traditions of parliamentary democracy, if we have a position where Ministers are not prepared to be held accountable by the parliament, where are we? As you read through the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .