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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4803 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

It is dangerous. Do not go near it". He then had the warning from the racing clubs in the ACT: "This is a hot potato. You should not do this". If the so-called consultative former government had not spoken to them before he signed the agreement, they certainly spoke to it afterwards saying, "Do not do this". Of course, the Labor Government at the time had the persistent, powerful, longstanding voice of Mrs Carnell and the Opposition making exactly the same point.

Let us assume, for argument's sake, that he entered into that agreement with bad advice and was misled by his advisers. Let us accept that he made an understandable mistake by signing the contract. But he then made the mistake of ignoring strong, clear, articulate and well-reasoned argument that was put to him subsequently by the range of people I have referred to. He ignored that. That is the reason that I think he should be apologetic to this house for what he has done.

His approach today has been the classic adolescent approach of attacking as a form of defence. He realises that he is in the hot seat, so he finds someone else to scapegoat in this exercise - "ACTTAB are to blame. My advisers were to blame, but not Sue Robinson, of course. The Liberal Government in New South Wales was to blame. The Victorian Liberal Government was to blame. Kate Carnell was to blame somehow for what I did". This is a classic weak-kneed, weak-willed, unsophisticated, unprofessional approach to this matter. It is the approach of a man who is prepared to do anything he can to avoid facing up to the responsibility which he has to this house and to this community. I hope that residents of the ACT pay very careful regard to what has happened in this affair, not just three years ago but today as well, when they make their decision about who should be Chief Minister and Treasurer of this Territory after 21 February of next year.

Debate resumed from 12 November 1997, on motion by Mr Moore:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for Fair Trading) (11.33): Mr Speaker, the Bill that Mr Moore has put forward deals with an area which was contentious when the Assembly first dealt with the Tenancy Tribunal Act and the code of practice on retail and commercial tenancy three years ago. Today it is still an area of controversy and keen interest for many in the community, particularly those who are in commercial or retail tenancy arrangements. The issues which are raised by this Bill have been debated in a number of forums, including the ACT Government working party whose Review of Commercial and Retail Tenancy Legislation was presented to me about three weeks ago. They also have been the subject of an extensive inquiry by a Federal parliamentary committee chaired by Mr Reid, which presented a committee report entitled "Finding a Balance: Towards Fair Trading in Australia". Subsequently there was a Federal Government response called "New Deal: Fair Deal - Giving Small Business a Fair Go", which attempts to pick up and deal with a number of issues arising out of that report. So, Mr Speaker, there are a number of issues on the table, reflecting the concern out in the community about commercial and retail tenancy in particular.

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