Page 876 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (3.27): Chief Minister, representations have been made to the opposition. If you do not believe us, call us liars.
Mr Stanhope: No, just give me the names. I do believe you, obviously. I have asked for the names.
MR HANSON: Clearly, you do not. They are the inferences you have been making across the chamber. This goes to the nub of the point that you are making. We know that people are frustrated because we have read it in the paper. We know that there are a minimum of 39 people who have been affected by this scheme. We know that some of them have contacted the opposition. But, clearly, all of them are feeling frustration because David Dawes, who works for you, has explained that to us in public.
Why is it that you are demanding these names if not to try and score some point, to try and turn the motive of the question that Mr Coe asked, the point of which was that there are members of the community who have taken up this scheme who are feeling frustrated and are demanding an apology—deserve an apology, I should say? You are trying to turn it around to infer that the opposition is being disingenuous. That is not the case. Clearly, there are members of this community who have gone on board with your scheme, believing what you told them about this being a viable scheme, and it has turned out it is not.
The point that Mr Coe has raised, which goes to the heart of the Westminster system, is that when people contact the opposition, they should do so feeling that there will be no comeback on them. If they do not want their names put forward, for the Chief Minister in the Assembly to demand the names and addresses of these people actually goes to the nub of the Westminster system of democracy.
You know that because the reality is that we have an opposition, and it is the opposition’s job to keep you accountable. When we receive representations, if the people making those representations do not wish to be named and do not want their addresses to be provided to government, it is absolutely against the way the system is meant to work for the Chief Minister of the ACT—you know this, Chief Minister—to demand their names and addresses.
The Chief Minister is trying to infer that we are being disingenuous or loose with the truth. That is not the case. For that reason, the motion moved by the Chief Minister is a disgraceful motion. In almost the same breath, in refusing to give the name of a financial institution, he has as much as admitted that he knows that what he is asking is absolutely outrageous. He understands what privacy is about and why we cannot give those names if people do not want them given.
I ask the Chief Minister to withdraw the motion. I think it is absolutely outrageous. He knows it. We should get back to discussing the substantive issue, which is the land rent scheme.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .