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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2556 ..

Perhaps the most important argument in relation to this motion, and the fundamental reason that I oppose it, is on the basis of the intuitive understanding I have of my responsibility and duty as a minister and an intuitive understanding, which has been confirmed for me by the Department of Justice and Community Safety, that the motion is almost certainly contrary to the law. It is almost certainly the case that it is contrary to sections 37 (b) and (c) of the self-government act, which make it clear that the executive’s responsibility is to execute and maintain enactments and subordinate laws, and it is for the executive to exercise such powers as are vested in it by, or under, a law in force in the territory.

We all know that the executive cannot properly agree to not exercise its statutory responsibilities. As a minister who takes responsibilities extremely seriously, I cannot and will not accept a direction not to do my duty as I see it.

Mr Quinlan: It’s as the law sees it.

MR STANHOPE: It is as the law sees it that protects that right. I believe I would be contravening not just my statutory responsibility but my duty and my obligation to fulfil my duties as I see fit, and I cannot be directed by anybody in the performance of my executive function. This is a motion I simply cannot accept.

MS TUCKER (6.28): I have considered this motion carefully, and I am not able to support it. I have now been through several caretaker periods and do not recall anything like this. There is a convention in the caretaker period. The capacity to move disallowance in the new Assembly is acknowledged as an issue, and I have sympathy with Mr Stanhope’s position and the arguments he has just put. I think the motion comes from a real lack of trust from some members of the Assembly. I cannot agree to this motion, because it would be inappropriate and I do not think you can stop government doing its business to that degree. There could be some quite serious implications.

MR SPEAKER: I have been told it is the wish of the Assembly to break for dinner. Does that still stand?

MR STANHOPE (6.29): Mr Speaker, I was advised that an agreement was reached in the Assembly that there would be no sitting tonight beyond 7 o’clock, and the government arranged its program on that basis.

MS DUNDAS: Mr Speaker, the Chief Minister does not have leave to make a statement.

MR SPEAKER: Order! You’ll need to seek leave, Chief Minister.

MR STANHOPE: I seek leave to make a statement, Mr Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, I was advised by the government whip that there was an agreement within the Assembly that there would be no sitting today beyond 7 o’clock. On the basis of that understanding, government members did not seek to have placed on the notice paper today motions of interest to them. I understand that undertaking has

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