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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (10 March) . . Page.. 481 ..

MR HUMPHRIES

members to consider whether they are doing the right thing by our electorate in passing these Bills today and whether, if only for the sake of appearances, they should put off these Bills until after the referendum in November.

MR OSBORNE (11.25): Mr Speaker, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

MR OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, I will be supporting the legislation, but I will be moving amendments similar to those I moved on the swearing-in issue. Given that Australia is in the middle of a debate on a republic, I do not think that we should be ruling out giving people the opportunity to swear allegiance to the Queen. So I will be drafting some amendments to Ms Tucker's legislation to give people that option, Mr Speaker.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

MR CORBELL (11.26): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion of censure against the Minister for Urban Services for misleading statements to the Assembly over the discussion paper on rural residential development.

Leave granted.

MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, I move:

That this Assembly censures the Minister for Urban Services for misleading the Assembly by claiming that the Discussion Paper on Rural Residential Development was an "independent discussion paper" on 29 October 1998 and again on 9 March 1999.

Mr Speaker, the Labor Party has no option but to move this motion of censure this morning because of the Minister's continued insistence that the discussion paper released by him on 29 October last year was an independent discussion paper prepared by independent consultants. Quite clearly, that is not the case.

Quite clearly, we have seen in a range of questions presented in question time yesterday and in the Minister's comments yesterday that he still believes this is an independent discussion paper, even when comments I obtained under FOI show that the consultant came under considerable pressure to change the report and the consultant complained that the report was being massaged and changed to suit the Government's point of view.

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