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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 286 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

In a sense, the extension of that process today is that, for the very first time, the Assembly is coming to the point where it is going to wreck the particular appointment to be made to a government body - as far as I am aware, for the very first time. If that is the precedent that is being set, we will certainly vote against it today. If it is set, we will acknowledge that it has been set - - -

Mr Whitecross: This is in the category of threats and intimidation.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Whitecross, there is a qualification. Only if there has been intimidation can you exercise this power. I am sorry, Mr Whitecross; that is not the way it works.

Mr Berry: That is all right. If we ever do what you did, you can do the same to us.

MR HUMPHRIES: You cannot help yourself, Mr Berry, can you? If the Assembly resolves that members of this place have the right to determine membership of boards and bodies, so be it; that is the way it will be for ever and ever from this point onwards. I am sorry, Mr Berry; that is not the way I see it. I think this will be an interesting development and one that will not be particularly welcomed by the Government at this stage, but it will certainly be one that we will profit from in the future.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (6.13): I am sure Mr Humphries will get an opportunity to be in opposition in the future, so I am sure he will enjoy that when it comes. Can I just say in relation to Mr Humphries's fascinating contribution just then that Mr Humphries, if he were being a little more intellectually rigorous, might accept that, if you have a situation where the Government is forced to consult on appointments to boards, then logically you cannot have a situation where the Government arrogates to itself the right to sack people the next day without any sanction from the Assembly for failing to stick with your decision. We were indeed consulted on the appointment of the Interim Kingston Foreshore Development Authority board. We raised no problems then. Surely we are in a position now to express a view about the dismissal of someone from the board.

Mr Osborne said in his remarks that he thought this debate was unnecessary and a waste of time. I have to say that in many respects I agree with Mr Osborne. But it is necessary because the Carnell Government has on this matter, as on other matters - like doing 1997 valuations or defects in their cuts to ACTION bus services - simply refused to read the writing on the wall and has taken it right to the brink. Mrs Carnell has known for some time what the attitude of other members of the Assembly was to her decision to dismiss Ms Rees from the board in this way; yet she has taken it right to the brink rather than reading the writing on the wall and accepting, in the spirit of community consultation, in the spirit of respect for the Legislative Assembly, that perhaps she needed to review her position.

Unfortunately, Mr Osborne is to be disappointed; the time of the Assembly is to be wasted because Mrs Carnell is not capable of listening, of reading the writing on the wall; she waits till the last minute; she waits till she is told. Even when a motion is put by Ms Tucker calling on her to reinstate Ms Rees to the board, Mr Humphries gets up and says, "Even if you pass a motion calling on us to reinstate, we are still not going to do it.

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