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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2421 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Any censure motions, anybody? I have argued that we should have more power over corporations in the ACT. The ACT Assembly does not have power to deal with corporations, and as a result does not sit on the Ministerial Council for Corporations, except as an observer. I have argued that the ACT parliament should have more power over corporations and that we should be consulted more on issues affecting corporations at the national level. I hope there will be no censure motion because I have argued for that power to come back to the ACT Assembly. I have argued in those cases that power should be given to the Assembly. It is extraordinary that we should even consider moving against any member for doing so.

Let me close by saying that I think it is important for this Assembly to clearly define the circumstances in which Ministers in particular are accountable to this place for the things that they do. We have already established some guidelines on that. If Ministers mislead this place, they most certainly must be facing censure, or perhaps a motion of no confidence. If such a motion is passed, they should resign. All of us on this side of the chamber accept that standard and will live by that standard. That is our view about the matter. Clearly, if we mislead, we should do that.

In my experience, motions of no confidence in the past certainly have been based on misleading, except in the case of a motion of no confidence in the Chief Minister, which is basically about bringing down the government. Motions against individual Ministers in the past have been about misleading. Ministers have been censured in the past for a range of things, but they should be things which the Assembly views as reprehensible at least.

I would argue that, both because we have been open and up front about our program and our way of dealing with that program and because we have been consistent in what we have said and we have done, there is nothing censurable about anything that we have done. I appreciate that some members have already made a decision about this matter. I appreciate that the Greens have already announced publicly what they are going to do about this motion, even before hearing the debate about this matter on the floor here; but I would appeal to them - - -

Ms Tucker: But we have talked to both sides about it.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, you have, but before the debate today. As I have said, there are quite significant changes in what has actually been alleged today about this matter, so I would hope that you are open minded enough to listen to what I have had to say about these matters and not jump to the conclusion that this is a matter for censure. I believe very sincerely that it is not a matter for censure at all.

MS TUCKER: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a further statement clarifying something Mr Humphries said on this matter.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: Mr Humphries seemed to be under the impression that we were really voting here on what we thought of the leasehold system. I want to make it clear that that is not how we are making our decision. I know that my colleague did speak at length about these issues today and took the opportunity to raise the general issues of leasehold

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