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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2386 ..

MR CORBELL (2.38): Mr Speaker, the only reason the Government is moving this motion today is that they are afraid of question time. We know very well, Mr Kaine, why Mr Humphries is moving this motion. Other members may not be aware of it, but we know very well that you are attempting to hide from question time. That is the only reason you are doing it. If you are so serious about this sort of motion, where is your censure motion against Ms McRae and Mr Berry? It has disappeared, has it not? You do not even have it. You gave an undertaking to the Opposition that you were not moving it.

Quite clearly, Mr Speaker, the only reason the Government is moving to bring on this no-confidence motion now is that they want to delay question time. They want to delay this Opposition's opportunity to scrutinise some very important events that have occurred in the Territory over the past two months. They are scared. They are scared of that scrutiny. They want to delay it until later in the day when there are fewer people to observe that happening. We are not prepared to allow that, Mr Speaker. We believe that a no-confidence motion should be brought on when the Opposition believes it is most appropriate to be brought on, and that is immediately after question time. That is the undertaking we gave to the Government; that is the undertaking we gave to the rest of the members of this Assembly. We would ask other members of the Assembly to accept the Opposition's right to bring on the motion of no confidence when we believe it is appropriate.

MS TUCKER (2.39): I find this debate really interesting. Even though I was not here for the precedent that is being described by members who were here when Mr Berry insisted on that right, I recall very clearly that I had a lot of pressure from Labor to actually force the timing of a motion of censure of Mr Stefaniak. It was explained to me in very strong terms that I had to pay him that respect and that it was very onerous to have such a motion on the notice paper. I do find this stance by Mr Berry quite inconsistent as well. I think it is quite reasonable that we go straight ahead with this motion. We will have question time. The Government is not going to be unscrutinised. You think they are fearful of question time. Well, that will still happen, just at a later time.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (2.40), in reply: Mr Speaker, I just want to put something very clearly on the record. Mr Corbell, in his comments a moment ago, suggested that the agreement between parties was that this would be brought on after question time today. Mr Corbell was not present at the meeting of representatives of parties last Friday when Government business was discussed. If he had been, he would be quite well aware that I expressed the view, and I think other members supported the view, that the motion of no confidence ought to be dealt with at the first available opportunity after the matter that was dealt with this morning had been disposed of.

There was no agreement that there should be any dealing with this motion after question time; none whatsoever. Mr Berry certainly put that point of view; but I said it was my prerogative, based on precedent in this place, to have the motion dealt with as the first matter of business. Mr Speaker, that is the precedent Mr Berry set in 1994.

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