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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3403 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

inquiry, I believe that they would work professionally with the person who was charged with taking on this inquiry.

These people can work professionally and sensitively. It is really quite interesting to me that so little faith is being demonstrated here by Mr Moore and Mr Humphries about the possibility of this actually working.

Mr Humphries: And Mr Cahill.

MS TUCKER: Well, no, I think Mr Cahill has said that, if the Assembly wants to see this happen, then it is the Assembly's right. He has highlighted some difficulties here, but I cannot believe that what you are saying is that he is saying it is impossible. He is not saying it is impossible to address these issues. He is posing problems.

The fact is that these concurrent inquiries occur often in New South Wales and are managed quite well without problems-I would not say 100 per cent, because Mr Cahill told us yesterday that sometimes there are issues. (Extension of time granted.)

It is unfortunate, as I said, that we have had to do this. I will just get back to what is happening here fundamentally. There is clearly a way where there is a will, and I believe that it is quite possible to have two concurrent inquiries. It is clear that Mr Moore is not going to countenance it, but I am urging Mr Humphries to consider this very carefully, because his interests as Chief Minister, and the interests of his party, are different to the interests of Mr Moore.

Mr Humphries has to take into account the long-term interests of the Liberal Party, and he needs to understand that people in the community are saying that this is about politics, and this is about the government not wanting scrutiny. They know it is possible to have these inquiries, because enough communication occurs-between the sectors, across borders-to know it is possible. We are seeking a sign of leadership from Mr Humphries, and want him to say, "If 10 members of the Assembly say that we need this inquiry, we need it."

People know that Mr Moore himself once introduced a piece of legislation to force motions onto this parliament. Mrs Carnell supported it because she said, "I support democracy." But, my, how times have changed, because now Mr Moore is a minister and he knows better. He knows that, really, when he is in a position of power, it is not about democracy at all: it is about him having his way.

Mr Humphries needs to really look at what that means, because what we are seeing here is a contempt of this Assembly. We may well have to have legislation that Mr Rugendyke has tabled today, which will be passed. People understand that the Hare-Clark system delivers a minority government that has to listen to the majority of members. Clearly this minority government thinks that is not necessary.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.03): I do not wish to speak for long. The points that I would wish to make have been made very well by my colleague Mr Wood and by Ms Tucker.

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