Page 3733 - Week 12 - Thursday, 21 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: It is just coming, Madam Speaker. Only by a motion of no confidence can parliament possibly enforce answerability on the Executive. My question is: If a Minister ignores a direction of this Assembly and the Assembly subsequently passes a no-confidence motion against that Minister, will the Chief Minister remove the Minister from the position or would it require a no-confidence motion in the Chief Minister herself?
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson, that is a hypothetical question. I cannot allow it.
Diesel Fuel Franchise Fee
MR HUMPHRIES: My question is to the Chief Minister. Is she aware of a statement by Brian Corkhill, of Corkhill Bros, that, if the Government's exemption from the franchise fee on diesel fuel for off-road users is removed, his firm will have no choice but to move his business to Queanbeyan to remain competitive? Mr Corkhill estimates that his contribution to the ACT revenue by way of payroll tax, registration fees and the like is about $400,000 a year. Does the Chief Minister concede that her decision to remove this exemption is a failure if one company alone leaves Canberra and takes with it half the expected revenue gained for the Government? Does she concede that if even three companies of this size left Canberra she would lose more from this measure than she will gain from the 2,400 home users who will now be paying a diesel fuel franchise fee?
Mr Berry: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. This seems to anticipate debate on a Bill which is before the Assembly. I really think you are better off raising that as an issue in the debate. It is on the notice paper.
Mr Humphries: If you are so cowardly that you cannot face an issue like that now, you do not deserve to be in government.
MADAM SPEAKER: There is a point of order, Mr Humphries. Let me consider this matter, unless you wish to address the point of order.
Mr Humphries: Yes, I do, Madam Speaker. This is a matter which is before the Assembly at the present time. It is a matter of some importance to the Assembly. In the past, the Assembly has never allowed debate on an issue before the Assembly to prevent questions being asked at question time. Indeed, today questions have been asked about the efficiency of ACTEW, even though it is an MPI for today.
MADAM SPEAKER: Because that is not on the notice paper, Mr Humphries. Be careful.
Mr Humphries: It is business before the Assembly, Madam Speaker. I think the past practice has been to allow such questions to be asked.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, you have to distinguish between material that is on the notice paper and matters such as MPIs. It is not simply matters that are before the Assembly. What I have, however, allowed in the past is for Ministers to choose to answer the questions should they want to and, in doing so, to avoid anticipating debate. The Minister may choose to answer the question if the Minister wants to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .