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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3435 ..

MS TUCKER (11.17): I think this debate has gone right off the rails, and it has gone off the rails from both sides. Mrs Carnell was just talking about personal attacks.

Mrs Carnell: He just attacked me.

MS TUCKER: Yes, Mr Berry did, I agree; but I imagine you would be glad to see people with expertise in fighting fires if your pharmacy was in flames, Mrs Carnell. I do not think it does you any credit to try to discredit that particular line of work. There is no need to go to that level from either side. I also make the point that this is not just about Labor. Mr Berry has chosen to focus particularly on the issue of ownership of a pharmacy. I do not know that it is all that relevant, although it is connected with the issue. Mrs Carnell, this is not something that Labor made up for budget week. It is something that came out of the Administration and Procedure Committee, and it has been on the business sheet there for some time.

I do welcome the inquiry, although I think there is a basic issue involved, which is conflict of interest. We have recently had the Government taking a strong stand on so-called conflict of interest in regard to membership of a committee. The ultimate result of that is quite possibly going to be the discrediting of a committee inquiry, and I find that extremely disappointing.

Mrs Carnell: Not publicly.

MS TUCKER: No, but that is why I say that I would welcome a cooperative discussion on this issue. What I am very concerned about is that for political ends people are raising the question of conflict of interest, and not with a genuine commitment to seeing whether that conflict exists. I hope we can come up with something that is helpful in the Administration and Procedure Committee, although I think it is basically still going to be often a political decision whether this issue is raised. I do not know how you can do anything about that, except ask people to act in good faith.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (11.20): Mr Speaker, I want to make a few comments about this debate. As the Chief Minister said, we intend to support the motion because we think it is quite important. I will, in a moment, move an amendment to the motion, but let me make a couple of comments first. Ms Tucker said that we should have a cooperative discussion about this issue and we should try to deal with this in an objective way. I entirely agree with that suggestion. I think it is a very important suggestion; but can I inform Ms Tucker, in case she does not know, that this morning already on the radio Mr Berry has been saying, I understand, and has been quoted as saying on the radio this morning, "If we can get this motion up, Mrs Carnell will have to sell her pharmacy". That is what he is quoted as saying on the radio this morning.

I and my colleagues were prepared to come into this place and support this motion without any reference at all to any individuals or personalities. That would have been entirely appropriate. Mr Berry has set the tone of this debate with his opening comments, with his attack on the Chief Minister, and I think it is entirely appropriate for the Chief Minister to respond to those comments in kind and to defend herself in full.

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