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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3754 ..

Mr Berry: And she has done.

MR MOORE: Mr Berry says, "She has done". I quote from Ms Tucker's own words, where she said, "I am sure Mrs Carnell has been clever about not overstepping the mark". If she has not overstepped the mark, she has not misled the Assembly and, in your own words, you have conceded that that has been the case. This motion carries a very clear warning about how far you can go in regard to misleading the Assembly.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (4.08): Mr Speaker, I want to relate a conversation that occurred last night. I was not a party to the conversation, but I am told that this is what occurred. If the parties who are here - - -

Mr Moore: Would this be accepted in court, Gary?

MR HUMPHRIES: Hearsay, Mr Speaker. We are not in court, so Mr Moore can take me to court if he wants to stop it being said; but I am going to relate it to the Assembly anyway because I think it is a matter of some interest on this issue. About three weeks ago the unfortunate smashing of the windows here led to Ms Tucker appearing in the Canberra Times promising to move a motion of no confidence in the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister was a little concerned that three weeks had passed since that claim was made in the paper and still the Chief Minister did not have a clear idea of exactly what the basis of the motion of no confidence would be. I do not think I need to remind members that motions of no confidence are just about at the peak of the pyramid of seriousness in terms of action against members of parliament, particularly members of a ministry. The only thing more serious than that is a motion of no confidence in the Chief Minister as Chief Minister, and that brings down the Government formally under the self-government Act. I suppose the next thing short of that is to move a motion of no confidence in a Minister. The consequence of that motion has to be that the Minister has to resign.

Mr Berry: It did not happen last time. It was a censure motion. You misled the chamber and ignored it.

MR HUMPHRIES: It always happens under this Government. Mr Berry does not quite understand that there is a difference between a motion of censure and a motion of no confidence. A motion of no confidence is more serious, and Ms Tucker was promising a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Health. As of last night, the Chief Minister, or the Minister for Health, rather - there is a difference in this case - did not know what the basis of this motion was going to be, had not seen the motion, did not know the details on which the - - -

Mr Berry: It was going to be a vote of no confidence. It has been known for three weeks, you just said.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, Mr Berry repeatedly took points of order previously about being heard in silence on these issues. I would ask him to respect his own rules in that respect.

MR SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order.

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