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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2358 ..

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Minister for Health and Community Care) (6.22): Mr Speaker, it is interesting how Mr Moore gets confused between openness and accountability in business practice because that was very much - - -

Mr Moore: It is okay except when money is involved. Is that right?

MRS CARNELL: No, not at all. This amendment is very clear. It says yes, they do have to be tabled, except under a circumstance where the Territory or the service could be disadvantaged. We totally agree with openness and accountability, but we do not believe in openness and accountability when the potential is that the service or the Territory could be disadvantaged. A Minister, under a Westminster system, makes those sorts of decisions every day, Mr Moore, and you know that. A Minister is responsible for those sorts of decisions every day. That is part of the system of government that we have. Yes, we support openness and accountability, but our role as Ministers, our role as a government, is to look after the Territory or the service or a particular department's assets and to make sure that we get the best deals and the best arrangements in place. If we believe that tabling this sort of documentation would cause a problem, then it would seem to me you are doing your job as a Minister by ensuring that it is not tabled, unless, of course, the Assembly decides something different.

MS TUCKER (6.23): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to propose another amendment relating to something earlier in the Bill. It was brought to my attention by Mr Moore - I think it was also referred to by Mrs Carnell - that to be consistent this other clause needs to have a similar amendment made. This amendment has been circulated to members.

MR SPEAKER: My advice from the Clerk is that we should move one at a time, Ms Tucker. That is the advice I have received and it seems a sensible suggestion.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (6.24): Mr Speaker, I accept that Mr Moore is being fully consistent in this matter, and he deserves brownie points for being consistent. I would argue that the Government has been consistent because we have always opposed joint ventures being exposed to tabling on the floor of the Assembly. We have always said the same thing. But let me put a case to Mr Moore and his colleagues on the crossbenches. It is in your interests to get the Labor Party to state the principles under which they are supporting your amendment today because the next time there is an election which results in a Labor government they are going to go back to the principles that they followed when they were in government before. We are going to support our principles that we have always followed and we are going to vote against them, and you will not have the numbers to do these sorts of things in future. So you had better get the principles on the table now so we know in the future when they are going to commit themselves to these joint ventures.

MR BERRY (6.25): Mr Speaker, I take a great deal of delight in helping Mr Humphries out here. Mr Humphries was in a team which screeched loud and long about openness and accountability before this election. You are getting a helping hand now with your mandate. You should not be grizzling about it. Those are the simple facts. We have had enough of broken promises in this Territory. You make the promises and screech about other people all the time before elections. Now it has come back to revisit you. You are being helped out.

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