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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2589 ..

Clause 5, page 2 -

Line 8, subclause (1), omit the subclause.

Line 12, subclause (2), omit the subclause.

I have moved these amendments in order to make it quite clear that the Greens do not support this Government's view, or, it appears, the view of the rest of the Assembly in this case, of what should be seen as priorities for the spending of public money. I am also concerned about the fact that we have not been able to look at this appropriation by means of an Estimates Committee process. The Government claims that, by seeking the appropriation, they are being open and transparent, but by denying us the right to look in detail at the expenditure they have continued in their usual can-do style.

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have already ruled several times today on this same point of order about reflecting on the vote of the Assembly. Ms Tucker is, again, in breach of the standing order which requires it not to be referred to.

MR SPEAKER: Indeed, and I uphold the point of order again.

MS TUCKER: Yes, fine. I am moving on. That is fine. I think it is important that the statement is made that we were denied access to an Estimates Committee process. That is not reflecting; I am just stating the fact. It is also quite amazing that they seem - - -

Mr Moore: On the contrary, Mr Speaker, you have ruled on it. Standing order 202 (d) and (e) makes it very clear that where there is persistent and wilful refusal to conform to a standing order the member may be named. You have ruled on this issue. Standing order 202 (e) makes the same point with regard to your position as well.

MR SPEAKER: Order! However, House of Representatives Practice also states that this rule is not interpreted in such a way as to prevent a reasonable expression of views on matters of public concern. I have tended, this morning, to take a more small "l" liberal approach to this. However, I will not have a direct reflection on a vote of this chamber. Continue, please.

MS TUCKER: Basically, I am also very surprised that the Government seems surprised that we do not have confidence in their claims about projected profit and private sector support. The debate on Bruce was not that long ago. In fact, it is still very much a current issue. On the event itself and the issue of priorities, once again the Government is claiming that it is justification enough to have this event because it will, allegedly, raise money.

The National Capital Plan says that the parliamentary zone and its setting remain the heart of the national capital. In this area, priority should be given to activities and functions that symbolise the capital and, through it, the nation. Preferred uses in the

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