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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (10 March) . . Page.. 497 ..

MR OSBORNE

I chuckled, because I have always believed that every time the Government commissioned an independent report it was giving the consultant the answer and saying, "Write the question". Unfortunately, in this case, Mr Smyth has been caught out.

I must admit to rarely believing that any of the reports that have come down from governments over the years have been completely at arm's length. However, Mr Smyth quite clearly indicated to the Assembly that this report had nothing to do with the Government; that it was independent in the context of the definition that Mr Corbell has provided. However, as he has explained today, that is not exactly the case.

I think that this Assembly does need to wrap him over the knuckles. I think it was a feather duster that was used last time with the motion to express grave concern. The matter is reasonably serious. The Minister has clarified the position. I think that is commendable.

I will not be supporting the censure motion, but I will follow the lead of the Labor Party and move a motion to express grave concern. I would have thought the hospital blow-out of $10m warranted a censure motion, but it did not happen. Mr Stanhope had a discussion with me about it today. I was keen to do something against the Minister in relation to school buses; but the word I got back - although Mr Stanhope denies it - was that the Labor Party would not support a censure motion.

Mr Stanhope: Let us talk about it again, Ossie. It must be three strikes and you're out with this bloke.

MR SPEAKER: That is true, Mr Stanhope. Two, in fact, here.

MR OSBORNE: Obviously, the Minister has been caught. He has apologised; but I do think that we need to at least register our concern at the use of the word "independent". As I said, I will not be supporting the censure motion. By Mr Smyth standing up and, as I said earlier, I think, apologising, or at least clarifying that they were involved with the report, he has certainly calmed down what could have been a more serious situation. As I said, I believe that the Assembly does need to register our concern, given the fact that the Minister has more than once certainly given the impression to members in here that this rural residential report was completely independent.

Mr Speaker, I support the concept of rural residential and I intend to support it in the future. This debate is not about that. I do believe that those opposed to it will use every possible avenue to try to disrupt it. I think that this Assembly, the Government, all of us, learnt a lesson over the Hall/Kinlyside situation and that that mistake will not be repeated; but we need to look beyond that and be positive about what I think will be a tremendous shot in the arm for the building sector in the Territory. I intend to support it when it comes before the chamber again. But this motion is not about that issue. It is about the use of the word "independent". That is why I will move an amendment to Mr Corbell's motion.

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