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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2362 ..

Motion (by Mr Humphries) proposed:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Humphries from moving a motion concerning amendments to Appropriation Bills.

MR MOORE (3.19): Mr Speaker, I oppose this motion, for the same reason as I failed to give leave. This motion will affectively pre-empt a discussion of the matter in the budget, and anyway I think it is appropriate that we question it under standing order 130, I think, off the top of my head. It seems to me that this is a lesser way of dealing with the real issues that ought to come before the Assembly and be dealt with appropriately. What we have here is an attempt certainly by the Minister and the Liberal Party, and I suspect by their mates in the Labor Party, to get a major party solution to budgets - an "either they will do it or we will do it, but nobody else will be able to interfere" kind of approach.

Mr Osborne: Council-style government.

MR MOORE: I hear an interjection from my colleague Mr Osborne, whom I could hardly speak to yesterday, saying that this is council-style government. Indeed, that is an issue we will come to if we wind up debating this particular matter, because it is so much in conflict with council-style government. That is why I oppose either leave or, in this case, suspension of standing orders. We ought to get on with the business of dealing with the Appropriation Bill.

MR BERRY (3.20): Mr Speaker, the Labor Opposition will support the suspension of standing orders in order that debate in relation to this matter can proceed. I think it is quite churlish of Mr Moore to oppose leave being given on this issue, because it is an important one for the future of this Assembly. This is about allowing this Assembly to debate important issues. If Mr Moore is frightened of the debate, I cannot help that, but this is an important issue and this important matter has to be debated. We want to debate the issue; we do not want to see it pushed under the carpet.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (3.21): Very briefly in response to Mr Moore's comment about council-style government, those on this side of the house would be very pleased to go to council-style government, but unfortunately the level of support from others has been somewhat less than satisfactory in the past. The difference between the sort of government we have now and council-style government would be that the committees would actually be responsible.

Mr Berry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The debate before the chamber is in relation to a motion that has been moved by Mr Humphries, not in relation to an interjection from Mr Moore.

MR SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order.

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