Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 245 ..

The Opposition has no concept of what opportunities are created by that particular proposition. Over the last three days, they have asked us continuously questions such as, “What does this arrangement mean for the ACT? What will get demolished, and when? Who will be responsible for that decision? Where will the people on the site be moving to? When will this occur?”. They have asked us about all those sorts of decisions. We cannot answer those questions unless we proceed to conduct the negotiations to which this motion refers. We cannot answer those questions unless we settle those arrangements with the Commonwealth pursuant to that contract. It would be foolish in the extreme to stop the process of discussion and negotiation with the Commonwealth merely because of the fact that an Assembly committee is in the process of reviewing that particular contract. We have entered into that contract and we are bound to the consequences of that contract.

Mr Speaker, to say that no further taxpayers’ money should be spent is an extremely vague expression. Is obtaining advice on what the position is spending taxpayers’ money? Of course it is. This is the same as a motion we had yesterday in this place. It is an extremely vague motion that could well cause the Government to be facing a censure motion in this place because we have not understood exactly what it is they are getting at with the motion. That no further taxpayers’ money be spent is a very broad blanket indeed.

The other part of the motion - and I will read the rest of the motion - refers to tenders being let and contracts being signed. Mr Speaker, it is important that we be aware that the Chief Minister has given an undertaking about those matters in question time today and before today. There will not be any tenders let, there will be no buildings demolished, and nothing further will be signed with the Commonwealth until such time as the Planning and Environment Committee has reported to the Assembly.

Mr Berry: Then you should not be worried about the motion.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Berry says, “You should not be worried about the motion”. The problem with the motion is that it is saying to the Government, “We have heard your undertaking to this Assembly, Chief Minister, and we think that you are a liar. We do not trust you to honour your undertaking and therefore we are going to impose a restriction on you through the Assembly, to ensure that you cannot break your promise, as is obviously your present intention”. That, I think, Mr Speaker, is a very serious thing indeed to do.

The Chief Minister has given her word to this Assembly. If members opposite are not prepared to accept that word, to trust that word, then they should cite an example of where an Assembly undertaking has been given previously by the Chief Minister and not honoured. If they cannot, it is incumbent on them to accept that this Assembly and any government have to operate on the basis of those sorts of undertakings being honoured from time to time. If Mrs Carnell breaches the undertaking, fine; in future let members of this place impose conditions on her through the Assembly so that she will have to comply with those arrangements because she cannot be trusted. But, until we reach the position

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .