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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1078 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I do not have any problem with there being a shopfront there, but I was interested to hear the claim about the second biggest gateway, so I asked for the statistics. Members might be interested to know. In 1999, for visitors, air transport was 13 per cent, private vehicle was 79 per cent, other was 8 per cent. For international visitors, 13 per cent air transport, 87 per cent private vehicle and 0 per cent other. If we are seriously interested in how people get into this city, how many visitors come here and what the gateway is, it sure ain't the airport.

The other point I have to address is conflict of interest. Mr Rugendyke has said that there is innuendo, there is a perception, there is myth. I have not heard Mr Humphries, Mr Smyth or Mr Stefaniak address any of the points I raised in my speech, so I will go over them again quickly. We have legal advice which is based on the presumption-it is the key point of that legal advice-that Brindabella business park is owned and run by Canberra International Airport, not Capital Airport Group. However, from the all the documents we can access it is clear-not myth, Mr Rugendyke-that the business park is run by Capital Airport Group. It is clear that, for all intents and purposes, Canberra International Airport and Capital Airport Group operate as the one entity. In the documentation, it is claimed the airport was paid for by Capital Airport Group, which then built the business park.

CTEC's legal advice that there is no conflict of interest is obviously open to challenge. That is why I have moved this motion. I believe there is ample evidence to say that there are serious questions. The evidence does not support the premise of CTEC, the government or the legal advice. The legal advice did not deal with this. For that reason, I think it is really a clear case. I am very disappointed that members do not see the need to censure the minister. (Extension of time granted.)

I quoted to members Odgers and House of Representatives Practice on the importance of orders of a parliament. They are different from motions. I have not heard Mr Rugendyke, Mr Osborne, the government-anybody-answer that. There has been some discussion about Mr Berry's amendment and the fascinating and wonderful statement from Mr Humphries that it is a very dangerous precedent to suggest that we could apply the concept "to mislead" to a minister who says he or she will do something and does not. That is wonderful. If that is such a dangerous precedent, I would be fascinated to understand what that means. If that is so dangerous, does that mean that we can expect ministers to often commit to things and not do them? I guess that is what the implication is.

I have not heard any good arguments for not supporting this censure on the grounds of the contempt of this Assembly by this government in not obeying the order of the parliament. The arguments I put up have not been addressed. There have been some rather unpleasant comments. I think it would have been much better if people had addressed the points I raised. I am glad, however, that at least this issue is going to be referred to the Auditor-General, and I thank members for support for at least that part of the motion.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

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