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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (14 October) . . Page.. 3192 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Stanhope attached great urgency and importance to this matter, saying that it was a very important issue that required a whole-of-government approach and that the inquiry was a major inquiry. It is so major that the committee has not had to do anything for the last five months. I do not think that Mr Stanhope has made a case for having this inquiry extended now until the beginning of August of next year, the year 2000. I do not think he has made that case at all, Mr Deputy Speaker.

When Mr Stanhope moved the original motion, Mr Rugendyke proposed that the matter go to a standing committee of the Assembly instead of a select committee, but other members, including members of the Labor Party, combined to defeat that proposal. If it had gone to a standing committee, at least the community would have been spared the cost of paying for a process which actually has not done anything in the 51/2 months since the committee was set up.

We hear all the time in the context of the Bruce Stadium affair about how the Government wastes money and how the Government is not being responsible; yet Mr Stanhope, who has set himself up as the person who is going to keep on the Government's back about the wasting of public money, has himself been presiding over a process which has wasted public money. Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that the motion should be rejected by this Assembly.

MR BERRY (5.14): Talk about nerve! Mr Humphries gets up and criticises other people for what they may or may not be doing in this place in relation to their duties to the Assembly. I interjected, contrary to the standing orders, that I would be happy to do a work value case on him at any time. I will just give you a classic - - -

Mr Moore: Start by noting who is in here after hours and at weekends, Wayne.

MR BERRY: Spending long hours watching television. Do not give me that, Michael. The trough was more important than the job. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the most tawdry attempt at creating a distraction that we have seen in a long time. The Government is under great pressure because of the way it hides behind commercial-in-confidence and the way that it issues contracts out there in the community. They do not like the feel of this inquiry. They know that it is going to be troublesome. They opposed it in the first place. At every point along the way they are going to try to distract attention from their own foibles by trying to implicate other people, and this is just another example of that.

For Mr Humphries to stand up and talk about it is particularly interesting because he is the Attorney-General of the Territory who, in the past, thought he should do something about the occupational health and safety legislation to fix up a problem which had been identified by the courts, that is, the ability to prosecute under that legislation - - -

Ms Carnell: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Relevance is pretty important in this debate. Mr Humphries was directed by the Deputy Speaker to make sure that his comments were relevant to the actual motion. Mr Berry has not even tried to be relevant so far.

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