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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (14 June) . . Page.. 1717 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Therefore it is a very good time for us to consider where do you interfere and where do you not interfere.

What is very clear to us, from what people have said today, is that the legislation that Mr Rugendyke has put here today does go too far. It does cross that line. But we should use the opportunity to ask what is the line? Where is it? How do we handle the likelihood that many of our governments over the next few years will be minority governments? I do not expect that all of them will be. I expect there will be a time when the community says, "Enough. We want a clearing. We want somebody to get out there and take action," and there will be a majority government.

I have to have this one little dig. I heard Mr Stanhope speak about the advantages of majority government and how he would like to lead a majority government. I was reminded of the way I believe he mistreated Mrs Carnell in a very significant way. Had she been in a majority government she would still be here sitting in that seat. I think you would agree that that is true. I have to say, Mr Stanhope, that I hope that treatment comes back to visit you. I genuinely hope that it does come back to visit you if you are Chief Minister at some stage. I still believe that the precedent that you have set in the way you pursued her with the accusation that she had broken the law is appalling. I said I would have my dig. I have had my dig. I appreciate the fact that you-

Mr Stanhope: It is very hard for me not to respond.

MR MOORE: You even managed to control yourself and not respond, which is absolutely brilliant. There are a series of conventions that I will touch on in terms of my role in cabinet. I think the first and most important of the conventions that we set was that wherever I have responsibility for a portfolio area I am bound by cabinet. That is the first one. The second one is that when I wish to take a different perspective from the cabinet I absent myself from the cabinet on those issues.

It may be interesting to members to know that in most cabinets I absent myself. Very often it is two or three times in the cabinet. So there are some conventions. It did raise issues. It is part of the evolution of a place like this. It may be a one-off, it may never be repeated again, but it has raised interesting issues.

I think it might be interesting for members to know that even though we are in the middle of a debate on the Electoral Act on which I have a very strong difference from my colleagues, at no stage has it become a personal matter. We have discussed it. We have discussed it at length. I think they are very wrong in their approach to this matter. One of the interesting things that have happened is that again and again, and I think the Chief Minister would agree with me, we have had differences of opinion on ideas but there has been no interference with a personal relationship. Unfortunately we sometimes lose sight of this in the Assembly as a whole, and I think that is very disappointing. It does not happen always. There are lots of times when we have managed to disagree but we understand that it is just a difference of opinion.

There is something else that is worth commenting on. I have listened to people here saying no, that we ought not support this bill of Mr Rugendyke's. This raises the issue of when the legislation was originally tabled. It may have been bluff, and that is something that you are the only ones who can judge, that members were going to support

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