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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 3714 ..

Mr Stanhope: You had not read the Nash submission, Chief Minister. Did the Government have it, Chief Minister? The Government didn't have it?

Mr Hird: Mr Speaker, I can't hear this.

MR SPEAKER: Silence! You will have the chance to speak later if you wish.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I think people are entitled - - -

Mr Stanhope: Say it, Chief Minister.

Mr Berry: On the record.

Ms Carnell: I don't know what he is talking about.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I appeal for your assistance in finishing this answer. Mr Speaker, what is the rule? Is it arms length or is it not?

Mr Stanhope: It is arms length. It is just that you have got very short arms.

MR HUMPHRIES: Well, in that case, if it is arms length, how is Mr Moore supposed to have intervened in a process which awarded, at arms length, Project Coordination the contract for the hospice? How is that supposed to have happened? What is the basis of your press release saying Mr Moore should have interfered? Why, on the one hand, do we have the Labor Party attacking the Government for failing to bring forward legislation to restructure WorkCover before the coroner's report had come down, and on the other hand, when we came forward early with changes to the demolition code of practice, we were accused of having acted in pre-emption of the coroner's findings?

What is the answer? We go too fast or we go too slow. You should not pre-empt, or you should have moved before now. What exactly are we supposed to do? "You should proceed with a quarry deal. Forget about the business plan", or, "No, you should not. You should wait. You should do this at arms length. You should wait for the due process to be observed". Mr Speaker, we do not know, and no independent observer of this process could possibly know. No-one could possibly know.

What we do know, Mr Speaker, is that Mr Stanhope is interested in due process and sounding very solemn about how things should be done properly when it suits him, and at other times all that can go out the window if it suits his purpose. Mr Stanhope has an opportunity later today in the adjournment debate to clarify all of this. When is the Government supposed to move early on these things and when is it supposed to hang back? When is it supposed to pre - empt findings and when is it not? When is it supposed to override due process and when is it not? I look forward to that interesting answer, Mr Speaker. The fact is that Mr Stanhope loves to use the word "process" but not to observe it when the crunch comes when he has got something he wants to get yesterday.

Mr Berry: Well, you can still have a holiday on New Year's Eve, Gary.

MR SPEAKER: You will have a holiday very quickly if you are not careful.

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