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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2850 ..

MS TUCKER: I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I think it would be useful for me to remind the Chief Minister and her Government, in particular, of the Chief Minister's consultation protocol which was released in December 1997. Six points are listed which will indicate whether or not it is required that consultation be undertaken. Four of those six points, I believe, absolutely apply to this discussion. I will read them out: The issue directly affects a significant group in the community; the proposal will significantly affect the rights and entitlements of ACT citizens; a significant number of people or particular groups are likely to have strong views on the issue; the change is likely to directly affect the quality of life for people in the ACT. Four out of six points, Mr Speaker, are obviously related to this. We have new amendments from Mr Moore and we have information from the DPP, which I have not seen. I have only recently seen the information from the ACT Discrimination Commissioner. These are obviously important matters. This protocol would dictate to this Government, and every other member of this place that I understand has supported this consultation protocol, that we adjourn this debate.

MR OSBORNE (11.45): Obviously I will not be supporting the adjournment put up by Mr Berry. I have just a couple of points to make. I am interested in the letters that were tabled by Mr Stanhope. I find it interesting that the DPP would choose to circulate to every member of the Assembly a letter to his Minister. I find that an interesting approach from the public servant in relation to his stance on that. I believe that in the amendments Mr Moore has certainly addressed many of the concerns of the DPP.

Secondly, on the Discrimination Commissioner, I felt it important to cast my mind back to 1992 when the abortion clinic was opened. I had a look at the votes on that night, Mr Speaker. I looked down the list and, surprise, surprise, whose name should appear there? It was Rosemary Follett's. Who is Rosemary Follett? She is the Discrimination Commissioner. I felt it very important that that be on the record, Mr Speaker. So I hardly think that she comes into the debate.

Ms Tucker: So what are you implying exactly, Mr Osborne?

MR OSBORNE: There are no serious implications. I am just putting it on the record, Mr Speaker. I am not implying anything. I am just saying that it needs to be on the record. This issue has been on the table for a number of months now. The final result that we have, I do not think, is different from the second part of the first Bill that we tabled. It is just stalling tactics on the part of the opponents. I think it best that we deal with the issue today and, hopefully, come up with a sensible outcome.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MR STANHOPE: There are just a couple of things that I would like to add to my contribution. I would like, initially, to respond to the point that Mr Osborne just made in relation to the Discrimination Commissioner's position and Mr Osborne's drawing of some parallel conclusion between the fact that Ms Follett voted in a certain way in this place and now, as Discrimination Commissioner, is - - -

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