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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1477 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Why do we know anything about this at all today, Mr Speaker? (Extension of time granted) Like, I suspect, the majority of members, until question time yesterday I did not even know that Mr Humphries had written to the Law Society. It gets back to what Mr Osborne said, Mr Speaker. Why are we doing this today? Why is this out in the public? It is because Mr Kaine raised it in the house and with Mr Berry and Mr Stanhope. They have continued to peddle this line.

Mr Kaine said Mr Humphries is using the opportunity to denigrate Mr Collaery. Well, why is the opportunity here? Why has this issue even been raised when there is a process that says that when you have concerns about the activities of someone in the legal profession you take it to the Law Society? Why is not the Law Society being allowed to deal with this?

What we have here is a reiteration of those who preach process breaking their own code. Yesterday we saw it on Bruce Stadium. We have an Auditor-General. The Auditor-General is the process. The Territory and the Assembly endorse that process. The process is running. But because they are not happy, they will run their own process. We see it again here today, Mr Speaker. There is a process. If you have a concern, if you have a problem, you raise it with the Law Society. Did Mr Humphries follow that process? Yes, he did. Is that a private process? Yes, it is. Should we be discussing this today? No, we should not.

We are discussing this today because somebody in the law office or in Mr Collaery's office took the opportunity to release these documents. These documents came into Mr Kaine's hands and he asked the question. Who made it public? Mr Kaine did. But then Mr Stanhope jumped up. Having heard his response, his very short and very empty response, it stands for nothing. We should have heard an alternative budget today. All we heard was drivel. That was all we got. It just stands for nothing.

Then we have this attack by Mr Kaine on Mr Rugendyke to listen. He said, "Mr Rugendyke, listen; you are not paying attention". Members listen in their offices. Members listen in their own way. We all move around. Indeed, during Mr Stanhope's budget reply, Mr Berry was across here discussing matters with the Government. I did not hear Mr Berry chastised for not taking his own leader's speech seriously, but then, I guess, that is what we expect of Mr Berry.

I go on to what Ms Tucker said. Ms Tucker raised the issue of lack of confidence in the Government. Mr Speaker, I wonder how many people will attend Mr Stanhope's breakfast tomorrow to discuss his alternative budget? I just wonder. On Wednesday 500 people paid up to come to Rydges, full of confidence, full of belief, full of praise for the Government because we have delivered. We have delivered exactly what they wanted. They want financial responsibility, but they still want Canberra to be the city that it is and that we are all proud of. I guess you have to question where Ms Tucker was yesterday when 500 Canberrans got together.

Ms Tucker raised the OH&S legislation issue. Mr Humphries, if I recall correctly, wrote to the chair of the committee. He raised these issues with the chair of the committee. I have only been in here a short time, a year and a bit, but as a government, and as

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