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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1786 ..

they were signing and the view that was represented in that letter would be reflected in the submission, but, of course, as we know, that submission took a different line anyway.

So on the issue today in this debate, I support this motion because I think some quite extraordinary circumstances have occurred in this place, and for the ACT community to have confidence in this Assembly we have to be seen to be not afraid of looking at these sorts of issues.

We had a budget delivered this week which made great and extensive use of the concept of social capital. Social capital is to many of us at least very strongly connected with the concept of trust, and trust in institutions as part of the overall model of social capital. The institution of government is clearly an important institution. These sorts of processes in parliaments are absolutely essential for the accountability and credibility of parliaments. Extraordinary events have occurred. Evidence was given in a committee in the way that I have outlined, and then there have been contradictory statements.

Mr Smyth should not be afraid of this if he is so confident. Mr Smyth should welcome this. He said he wants to be able to show how absolutely integrious his government is and how they desire to instil trust in the community. So I am concerned to hear Mr Smyth rejecting it. He should be saying, "Yes, this is a quite appropriate process. I am confident of my position and I welcome any kind of inquiry." I also want to comment on the letter. It is the second time-

It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77. Ordered that the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.

MS TUCKER: Mr Smyth has read out for the second time the documents from Ms Hosking and Mr Gower, so it is on the record again. I will make no comment about Ms Hosking's statements except to say that I invited her to speak to me if she would like to about the position of the Gungahlin group that she represents. She welcomed the opportunity. It was an amicable conversation. We discussed different views, as I do with everybody who comes into my office. My staff member would be happy to confirm that there was no animosity or acrimony in that discussion at all. Ms Hosking thanked me for the opportunity for the discussion when she left.

As I understood it, it was a perfectly reasonable discussion between an elected representative and a member of the community. I have no idea why Ms Hosking is now taking this line. That is her choice, but I reject her insinuations that in some way I was politically trying to interfere. Of course, we had an exchange of ideas, which was perfectly reasonable.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (12.02): Mr Speaker, this gets curiouser and curiouser.

Mr Corbell: Indeed it does.

Mr Stanhope: You are rarely independent. The independent Mr Moore.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, we have listened in silence to-

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