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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4907 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

at it seriously. They then need to make the decision that they are elected to make. That is the decision whether or not to put some of the recommendations in place. That is for the new Assembly to decide. I would like this motion to be passed this morning to send a message that says, "We would like it to be looked at seriously. Do not just put it on a shelf. Do not just shove it in a cupboard". Let us make sure that it is looked at seriously. Let us make sure that Professor Pettit and the other two members of the committee are given a clear message from this Assembly that we do support the work that they are embarking upon - we do not necessarily support the outcomes, because we do not know what they are yet - and that we will look at it seriously in the new Assembly.

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (10.57): I am delighted that the Chief Minister has brought this matter to the Assembly at last. It is a great pity, though not surprising, that the Chief Minister did not consult properly with members. When I say "properly", I mean consult with members at the contemplative stage before making the decision to determine whether in fact there was keen support for this review. If that had been the case, Professor Pettit may not have been put in the embarrassing situation that he has been put in by this Government.

Mr Speaker, I saw Professor Pettit and he asked me to give certain undertakings. As a result of that meeting, I wrote him a letter. I will read it into the record:

May I first of all thank you for putting aside time ... to meet and discuss with me the ACT and Federal Governments' Review of Governance in the ACT. Regrettably this was the first occasion where I have been able to formally express an opinion about the Review and the decision for it to proceed.

You made the decision before you sent the letter out. I will come to your letter in a moment. This is the most dishonest piece of work I have seen for a long time, though again not one that shocks me. My letter continues:

I was most concerned to hear your advice that your acceptance of the position as chair of the Review was on the then understanding that the Review had bipartisan support.

Who gave him that impression? Labor was not consulted about the idea and has never expressed support for the review and remains of that view. The letter further states:

As I explained to you, I have concerns about both the timing of the Review and the terms of reference. I am of the view that it is not appropriate to conduct a Review in the heat of an election campaign. I also believe that wider discussion and involvement of all parties in the Assembly would have yielded different terms of reference if a review at this time was endorsed at all.

Whether the committee proceeds is not a matter for me to decide, and any decision about the continuation of the committee or acceptance of any report it might produce would be a matter for consideration by an incoming Labor Caucus.

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