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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (26 October) . . Page.. 2091 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

that she believed that Ms Follett was saying that the families and spouses of MLAs could not be involved in bidding for any ACT government business. Ms Follett injected and said, "No, no, they cannot win a contract. They cannot win a contract". That is the point. They can be involved in running businesses in the town, they can even continue to do business with the Government, apparently; but if they win a contract they are out.

Mr Speaker, first of all, let me make it clear that a new rule is being formulated by the Opposition here, a rule they themselves did not articulate in government. Members of the Opposition have had members of their families involved from time to time in activities of a business kind in the Territory, or I assume that they have, or involved in contracts of employment with the ACT. I know that Mr Whitecross's spouse was an employee of the ACT Government Service until recently.

Ms Follett: Are you saying that he employed her?

MR HUMPHRIES: No; but his wife was so employed.

Ms Follett: But we are saying that the Government gave a contract to a member of the Government.

MR HUMPHRIES: Ms Follett and her colleagues seem to be saying that the activities of your spouse disqualify you in those circumstances from either membership of the Government, or, possibly, of the Assembly, or from having a contractual arrangement with the ACT Government. If that is the case, why did she not say so in these purchasing policies, or in her own rules governing the conduct of members of parliament? When she was a member of the Executive, why did she not do that? Because, Mr Speaker, there was no point. She did not see the need to do so. It was not an issue. She did not believe, Mr Speaker, that people's spouses should be the criterion on which you judge people. It is very interesting to note that the Commonwealth discrimination Act says that it is illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of that person's spouse. We think that is a pretty reasonable provision of the law. We do not think you should be attacking people on the basis of what their spouses do or where they are employed or how they earn a living, but this Opposition clearly does. Of course, they believe that only now that they are in opposition. They did not articulate that rule when they were in government. Mr Speaker, these people are, as has been said before, unashamed hypocrites.

As I have indicated, the tender calling process was entirely appropriate. It was in accordance with the tender procedures laid out in the purchasing policy of this Government and the former Government. Officers of Mr De Domenico's department complied completely with those rules. When Mr De Domenico found out about the winning tender he asked for verification that the procedures had been followed and that everything was above board. He was given that assurance. Not a single thing that has been said by the Opposition today has cast doubt on that advice. I plead with members opposite once again to put on the table some element of this policy which has been breached by what has been done by this Government. Tell me the page number. Tell me the paragraph. Where is the breach? They cannot do so.

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