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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4921 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

to genuinely participate in a bipartisan process. On the first occasion, when the Chief Minister proposed and announced the establishment of a committee to inquire into the governance of this Territory, she did it by media release. The first time that the second largest party in this place found out about it was when we heard about it on the radio news that morning. You would think that, if the Chief Minister was genuine about getting all-party agreement on the need for an inquiry and wanting to make sure that it could not become a political issue, she would have approached Mr Berry, Mr Moore, Mr Osborne and the Greens before she agreed to the establishment of it. She did not do that, and she admits it.

She wrote to Mr Berry - she has tabled the letter - after she had made the announcement, saying, "What do you think the terms of reference for this process should be?". She did not ask whether or not there should be a process. She did not say, "Do you think now is the appropriate time to have a process? Are you worried that this process might get caught up in the politics of an election campaign?". She did not raise any of those things. She just said, "I have announced it. You can make a few comments about what you think should be in the terms of reference". That is not a democratic process. That is not even a consultative process. That is nothing more than trying to justify a political stunt. That is what that process is.

Then, this morning, we had the Chief Minister again come into the chamber and, without warning, say, "I want you to support this motion; otherwise the committee of inquiry into the governance of the Territory is not going to go ahead, because Professor Pettit says that he is unhappy with the way it is going at the moment". Again, the Chief Minister had an alternative. I appreciate that the Chief Minister received the letter only yesterday. That is quite clear from the tabled letter from Professor Pettit. But she could have come along before the commencement of sitting today and said to Mr Berry and the crossbenchers, "I want to move this motion. What do you think? I have concerns about how the process is operating. Professor Pettit has put this proposal to me. What is your feeling on it? Is this the best way to handle it? Can we handle it in another way?". No, she did not do that either. She sprang the motion on the Assembly and asked the Assembly to vote for it - yes or no, what do you think? That is not consultation. If the Greens and crossbenchers think it is, then all that indicates is that the Greens and crossbenchers have a relationship with this Government which is denied to the Opposition.

I was surprised to hear Mr Moore say that he had proposed the chair. Obviously, that is the trade-off Mr Moore wanted for his support for the inquiry. What is the democratic process in that? What about the six members on this side of the house? As long as the crossbenchers can be satisfied, we have democracy, it seems. That is not really an inclusive process, I say to Mr Moore, who is leaving the chamber.

Mr Speaker, those are the facts. The Labor Party is not saying that we oppose an inquiry or review of the form of governance in the Territory; far from it. We believe that it is appropriate that the forms of governance in our Territory are reviewed. It is entirely appropriate, particularly because of the underlying current, which my colleague Mr Wood

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