Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1218 ..
MS CARNELL (continuing):
Fearons Brennan's report stated that the finance was dependent on a joint and several guarantee by the ACT Government, which was unacceptable, Mr Speaker. But, even with that, those opposite went ahead.
Ms Tucker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have not been convinced that this is even vaguely relevant to whether or not Mrs Carnell and Mr Humphries misled the house in relation to Kinlyside and Hall.
MR SPEAKER: No. I have explained - - -
MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, may I speak to that?
MR SPEAKER: Yes.
MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, we are setting a standard of performance here and those opposite are suggesting that the approach we took leading up to the preliminary agreement was somehow inappropriate.
Mr Corbell: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is not what the Opposition is suggesting at all. The Opposition is suggesting that the Chief Minister recklessly or deliberately misled the Assembly. Those are the terms of the motion before this Assembly, and the Chief Minister must speak to that.
MR SPEAKER: I do not uphold Ms Tucker's point of order. I do agree that there is a process here that is trying to be linked by the Chief Minister. I have no objection to that. This is a serious charge, this censure motion. I believe that the Chief Minister has the right to develop the arguments as she sees fit, and, as far as there is a link, I am happy to go along with it.
MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, if we are debating solely whether Mr Humphries and I deliberately - (Further extension of time granted) If we are debating whether Mr Humphries and I deliberately misled this Assembly we can stop the debate now because Mr Stanhope did not show or quote from one document that indicated that any of the information he spoke about ever got to Mr Humphries or to me. If that is all we are debating, there is not a debate at all, Mr Speaker. What I have shown - - -
Mr Stanhope: Who is the Government?
MS CARNELL: Sorry; you actually have to be able to prove that the Ministers themselves knew; not that officials knew but that the Government, the Ministers themselves, knew.
Mr Kaine: That is a pretty shaky argument.
MS CARNELL: It is actually the approach. Mr Speaker, I think it is appropriate, taking into account Mr Stanhope's - - -