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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 433 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

here today. But we need to be consistent about the circumstances in which democratically elected parliaments can be overridden. That is the reason for this Government's submission to the Senate inquiry and the reason I think this motion today should fail. It detracts from that argument, and it would be very hard for us to come back in a year or two's time and argue a different case, a distinguishing set of circumstances, when the same sorts of powers are used, hypothetically perhaps, against possibly the ACT because of something that we have done or propose to do in this place. It is more consistent to take the approach which has been outlined in the ACT Government's submission.

Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.

MR STANHOPE: My question is to the Chief Minister. Yesterday, in answer to a question, the Chief Minister told me that she had relied on the advice of departmental officers when answering a question from Mr Whitecross about Bruce Stadium hirer arrangements in September 1997. The Chief Minister said that that advice had relied on clauses in the heads of agreement that had been negotiated by those officers between the Government and the Canberra Raiders and that there had been changes between the heads of agreement and the contract that was eventually entered into. Can the Chief Minister now tell the Assembly which clauses were changed and how? Will she table the heads of agreement that was signed by the Government and the Raiders to which she referred in her answer?

MS CARNELL: I cannot say which clauses were changed and how because I was not part of the negotiation of those issues. I am more than happy to table the heads of agreement. I understand when Mr Whitecross asked that question he had a copy. Maybe Mr Whitecross did not give it to Mr Stanhope, which would be a bit sad. If he did not, I am happy to table it. I was not a party to the negotiations, nor should I have been - nor should any politician at any stage.

MR STANHOPE: I ask a supplementary question. When did the Chief Minister first realise that her answer to Mr Whitecross was not correct? Why did she make no effort at any time to correct the very misleading statement she made in answer to Mr Whitecross?

MS CARNELL: I realised there was an issue when a member of the press asked me a question two days ago, which was the day before yesterday, relating to when Mr Whitecross asked the question. Those opposite have to remember that this occurred in the previous Assembly, not this Assembly. The reality is that this was raised a couple of days ago, and yesterday the issues were put on the record.

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