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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1300 ..

Mr Berry: I do.

MR MOORE: There are some people who believe they deliberately misled the Assembly. Did they do it recklessly? To be satisfied that they acted recklessly, we would have to believe that they believed they had some good reason for doing something and then proceeding as we did in the case with Mr Berry when we dealt with a no-confidence motion.

It is ironic, Mr Berry, you might note, that Mr Humphries quoted from a 1990 censure motion. I think it was the first censure motion ever moved in the Assembly. At that stage, Mr Berry, I strongly supported you in that censure motion but we lost. I just thought I would remind you.

Mr Berry: When you had some standards, Minister.

MR MOORE: The standards remain the same. I will just add something else. It would be a rather convenient situation for me to support a censure motion. Nothing would so clearly separate me from the Government and verify my independent status as supporting this censure motion. It would be a very convenient tool for me to be able to do that, with no cost. Had it been a no-confidence motion, the cost would have been very clear, but a censure motion I could support with no cost whatsoever. In fact, the smart thing for me would have been to go to the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister and say, "Nudge-nudge, wink-wink. Wear this. It will really help me a huge amount". After all, what does a censure motion do? You have had them passed before.

But there just was not enough evidence presented to have me believe that this really was about a censure motion. You talk about the crossbenches. I heard Mr Kaine's argument and I can understand his perspective. Ms Tucker's arguments, I must say, were quite extraordinary. I agree with what Ms Tucker was saying about protection of the leasehold system and about the general leasehold system. That is something that I have separated myself from the other members of Cabinet on. I have quite a different view from them. I will support all of that, but it is not a reason to censure somebody if they have a different view. That is how the Assembly operates. We have different views, and that is why we are here. But when it comes to a censure motion, as far as I am concerned, the argument was just not substantiated.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (6.16), in reply: I will close the debate, Mr Speaker. Contrary to what the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister and others have said, and contrary to what Mr Moore has found it convenient to think for reasons that I really do not understand and will worry about, we have today provided clear, substantial and substantive evidence that throughout the ACT bureaucracy there was a level of knowledge about the status of the Bolton lease. There is absolutely no doubt, and it cannot be denied that there was knowledge throughout both parts of PALM and throughout both parts of OFM that were relevant to the development of the preliminary agreement. I mentioned it this morning, and I will mention it again briefly before I get on to my concluding remarks, because I think it is important that I reinforce it, that senior officers within Planning and Land Management, on 11 July, prepared a detailed minute on the precise status of the Bolton lease. It is a three-page minute. It goes into detail.

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