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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4792 ..

MR MOORE (11.24): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Moore, you will not need leave. I am advised by the Clerk that these are new questions as a result of the splitting of the motion. You do not need leave.

MR MOORE: That was the clarification I sought before, Mr Speaker; hence the misunderstanding. I think this raises the general question: What will the committee achieve? Will it solve some problems or will it continue the agony under the proposal? I expect, from what Mr Berry is saying, that the Labor Party will oppose the second part of the motion. If I believed the second part of the motion was going to be opposed, then, for me, it is far better to oppose the whole lot.

I cannot see why we should put an Assembly committee through a process that is not going to bring about change. The Assembly committee may report and say, "Yes; all the changes that you have just made and have just put people through are very good, and everybody is happy". That is fine, and under such circumstances nothing is particularly lost. On the other hand, if there are some recommendations for significant modification to proposals that have just been put in place, then we have a situation where there will be a reluctance to put further changes or to undo what has just been put in place. Of course, there will be a reluctance to undo what has just been put in place. There will be a reluctance on the part of the committee, in the first place. There will be a reluctance on the part of the Government.

If the committee says, "These changes have been put in place. They are disastrous, so we will recommend change", the Government, in its response, will say, "No. These are in place. People have accepted them, reluctantly. They do not like them, but the vast majority of people have accepted them. The changes are now in place. So, our response to the committee is that it is far better if we do not change them". By that time, the process has taken place; four or five months have passed; and it will be very difficult to get change. This is a non-solution. It is a way of Mr Berry being able to side with the Government to prevent this again and at the same time pretend that they are trying to look after emergency services. It is a non-solution.

Mr Speaker, I regret that I voted to allow this motion to be split, but that is done now. It seems to me that, if that is the view that the Labor Party is going to take on a split motion, it is absolutely pointless. I think it will be far better for the Assembly as a whole to say, "No. We are not going to deal with this. We are not going to give it to the committee". It is ludicrous to give it to the committee after the fact. I suggest that, if members feel that they do not want to support it, that they really think the changes should take place, then, for heaven's sake, just let them take place; do not play this ridiculous game which will only extend the agony of the people who are dissatisfied with the changes.

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