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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 10 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 3148 ..

Mr Moore: I am entitled to take a point of order, Mr Hargreaves. The point of order, Mr Speaker, is that you have always been very careful that debate on the motion for a suspension of standing orders does not go to the substantive motion.

Mr Berry: Hang on. Mr Speaker, it is very difficult to speak to a motion to suspend standing orders without referencing the motion which you wish to debate. It is almost impossible. Does it mean that we would just rise in this place and say, "I wish to suspend standing orders," and be able to make no further contribution to debate? Mr Moore's proposal is absolutely silly.

MR SPEAKER: I am afraid, Mr Berry, that I am not responsible for the standing order, but the fact is I do have to enforce it. Mr Stanhope, please be aware of the narrowness of what we are discussing, which is leave not being granted for the suspension of standing orders.

MR STANHOPE: Thank you Mr Speaker. Leave should be granted to allow this matter to be debated: that, having regard to the circumstances of Mrs Carnell's resignation, she not be recycled immediately back into the ministry, into the cabinet. It is a nonsensical notion that a person who resigns from the ministry in the face of a motion of no confidence should then go straight back onto the front bench and into the cabinet as a minister.

It is also, in our contention, simply unacceptable that a minister should resign, signal that she intends to go straight into the private sector as soon as an appropriate offer is presented, but says she wants to remain in the ministry. This represents an outstanding conflict, an unacceptable conflict, of interest. Can you imagine in any other parliament a minister signalling, "Look, I have had enough of this. I want out. I want to go into the private sector. I want to go into the corporate world, but I want to remain in the ministry until I get the job offer that suits me." Is that not the most staggering conflict of interest that you can imagine? What if Costello, up in the house as Treasurer, said, "I propose-

Mr Moore: Suspension of standing orders, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Order! You are now debating the main point.

MR STANHOPE: It is not. It is a justification of the need for this important issue of principle to be debated. We have this range of issues. This is not a sin-bin offence that the Chief Minister has committed; it is a send-off offence. If one is sin-binned one can at least sit on the sideline, perhaps. If one is sent off one takes no further part in the game. This is a send-off offence that we have dealt with. The former Chief Minister has acknowledged that it is a send-off offence. When you are sent off you do not even lurk on the sideline, let alone remain part of the game. We have this amazing-

MR SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.

MR MOORE (10.55): Yes, Mr Speaker, but when you walk off from a game of soccer or basketball, using the Olympics, you have a chance of course to walk on.

Mr Stanhope: Oh, there is no acknowledgment! There was no blame! "Don't blame me; I'm Kate Carnell!"

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