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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 67 ..

MR MOORE (4.57): I will speak to the motion and the amendments at the same time. Mr Speaker, I think the motion is a very good motion. I suppose, to get a unanimous view from the Assembly, it is better to modify it a little; but it does weaken it. Whilst I will accept the amendments to get a unanimous view, it strikes me that the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, is responsible for the Liberal Party's election promises, particularly in this area. They have broken them.

I know that the acceptance of core promises and non-core promises is not Mr Humphries's approach; nor has it ever been. The Prime Minister's stance on core promises and non-core promises is, "Do not ask me at the time I am making a promise which is which, because I do not want to tell you that. I will save that for later, because that would not give me enough room to move". The whole notion of a little lie or a big lie, a mortal sin or a venial sin, in this sort of thing is the background that I think Mr Howard is looking for. But the reality is that, if you happen to be a person who is desperate for legal support and you are going to miss out on legal aid, then this is a pretty serious election promise, for which the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has responsibility.

So, when you talk about "the Federal Government", in some ways it moves away from ministerial responsibility. The thing I liked about the motion in the first place was that it pointed the finger right where it should have been pointed - at the Liberal Prime Minister, Mr Howard - and then put it right back to him to ask him to restore the funding that he promised, as the leader of the Liberal Party, at that election. It seems to me that would be a much stronger stance. However, as I indicated earlier, taking into account that a unanimous motion from this Assembly has significantly more power than the other option, I am prepared to take the softer approach to ensure that.

MS TUCKER (4.59): I will speak to the motion and to the amendments as well. I support what Mr Moore has said. I think that there is some loss of accountability once you start to broaden it. It is very easy for a government to say, "Oh, well; we were not able to do that", for whatever particular reason; but I agree with Mr Moore that Mr Howard was the one making the promises. He does have to carry greater responsibility for what his Government has done and has not done, for what it has promised and what promises it has broken. So, I too am sorry that the motion has been weakened to that degree; but, because I want to see it get up with unanimous support, I will support the amendments. However, I think it is going to disappear into a hole, and it is more likely to disappear into a hole because it is not specifically directed at Mr Howard.

Debate interrupted.

MR SPEAKER: Order! It being 5.00 pm, I propose the question:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

Mr Humphries: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

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