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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1911 ..

MR CORBELL: I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MR CORBELL: I thank members for their indulgence. Mr Speaker, I direct my comments through you to Mr Osborne because obviously it is his vote which is at the crux of this matter this evening. If it is the view of Mr Osborne that he wants to vote on this matter then I would ask him to support my amendment. The reason for that, Mr Speaker, is that, from Mr Osborne's own account, he was not present when I closed the debate. He had to leave the Assembly.

In closing the debate I made some very important comments about why the government's arguments were not valid. I am sure Mr Osborne had the opportunity in his office to hear the debate this morning, my speech and the government's reply, as well as the speeches of other members, but he did not have an opportunity to hear my closure of the debate.

If Mr Osborne is genuine, and I am sure he is genuine, in considering that this is an important matter on which he wishes to cast his vote, I would ask him that he cast that vote with the benefit of having the opportunity to discuss with me the reasons why the government's arguments are not correct. If he is going to vote this evening without the benefit of that then I really do worry about the process we are entering into. I simply ask Mr Osborne to support the amendment and give me the right to put the arguments to him about why the government's arguments are not valid. I think that is a fair, natural justice process. If he is convinced that the process we are embarking upon tonight needs to be pursued, let us at least allow the vote to take place on the next day of sitting. I would like to put to him the arguments he did not hear because he was not present when I closed the debate.

MR OSBORNE (11.26): I am a little confused, Mr Speaker. I am trying to find the motion that says there will not be any inquiry at all.

Mr Kaine: There isn't one.

MR OSBORNE: There isn't one. That is right. We are not debating whether there is an inquiry or there is not an inquiry. We are debating who does the inquiry. I did not hear Mr Corbell's closing debate, but Mr Rugendyke and I discussed it when I returned and he is quite adamant in his mind that there should be some sort of inquiry.

The issue is not whether we have an inquiry or not; it is where the inquiry is done. I think having it handled by the urban services committee is sensible. I said earlier that perhaps it was a long bow to draw, the one that I used earlier about the privileges committee, and I concede Mr Hargreaves' point on that. But we are not debating whether or not there is an inquiry into what happened; we are debating where it should go, and I am quite happy for it to go to the urban services committee, as is Mr Rugendyke.

Mr Corbell: Mr Speaker, I am going to have to seek leave again, because Mr Osborne obviously does not want to take that opportunity tonight and I would like leave to put my argument to him now.

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