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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1043 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We know that, more often than not, this government treats motions of this place with disdain. We are getting used to that. But this is not just a motion-it is an order. I do not believe that this government is taking nearly seriously enough the views of this parliament. The debate yesterday is a good example. While I understand that the executive has certain rights, it is interesting to me that the fact they are a minority government does not seem to have much impact.

But getting back to the question of the minister's refusal to obey the order for papers: it is also very important to have on the record again the fact that we did not ask for the documents to be tabled in the Assembly-we asked for them to be made available for inspection only by members in the Clerk's office for 10 working days. Mr Deputy Speaker, this was because at the time concerns about commercially sensitive information were put to us, as a parliament, by the minister. We listened to those concerns and we responded in a cooperative way.

The fact that the minister now has the gall to tell us we cannot see the full information because of commercial sensitivity has to be condemned by this place. The minister does not seem to understand that there is something equally as important as, if not more important than, commercial sensitivity, and that is the public interest in ministerial accountability. Does the minister not understand the importance of these tenets? Does he not believe that members have the right to make judgements on these matters? Or is it that it is, in his view, just a game which you play to win regardless of the means.

This censure, I believe, could be a no confidence motion in different circumstances. This position is obviously one of the whole government, including Mr Moore. It is really the government once again showing its colours, and we just hope they are judged by the community accordingly in October.

The second part of my motion has three points, the first of which is to express concern about access to Brindabella Park for staff and clients. As members know, there is no public transport to the airport. Clearly, this is a problem for staff who rely on public transport.

I raised this matter initially with James Service in Mr Quinlan's committee inquiry into the draft budget. Mr Service explained that the airport was going to provide a bus service and that the corporation would help staff get to work, if necessary by taxi. Later, when I had a meeting with the new CEO, he also assured me the needs of the staff and clients would be accommodated by this bus service. However, when I asked what the service would be, the answer was "a regular bus service". So I pursued the question: what is a regular bus service; what do you mean by a regular bus service? Unfortunately, there was no greater detail given. I then asked what hours the staff worked. I was told that, depending on the work, the day could start at 8 am and go late. I asked whether a regular bus service will provide a service for people who start at 8 am and work late, and the answer to that was not known either.

Then, of course, we come to the whole issue of access for clients. I was particularly interested in the multicultural festival and Floriade because, as most of us know, there is intense interaction and communication between organisers and artists and community organisations in the lead-up to these festivals.

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