Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (17 February) . . Page.. 274 ..
MS CARNELL (continuing):
legal opinions that go both ways. It would be very wrong for Ms Tucker or this Assembly to determine what was right and what was not. It is up to the courts and it is within the purview of the Senate.
MS TUCKER: I ask a supplementary question. Given that in making a submission to the Senate inquiry you have acknowledged that the ACT has a role in this debate, given the high level of public interest and concern on this issue, and given that it is more complex than just a State/Territory rights issue as it involves an international human rights convention and it contradicts recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, are you confident you have the broad support of the ACT community and this Assembly for your position that the imposition of mandatory sentencing is not compelling or urgent enough to warrant Federal Government intervention? If you are confident, whom have you consulted in reaching this conclusion?
MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, this Assembly is always more than capable of bringing forward a motion directing the Government to go down a particular path. It has not done so. On that basis - - -
Ms Tucker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it possible to get any kind of a direct answer?
MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
MS CARNELL: Ms Tucker asked a quite definite question. She asked how I knew I had the support of this place. I would ask Ms Tucker whether she has the support of the broad-based community? No, she does not.
MR OSBORNE: My question is to Mr Humphries. It too relates to the question I asked him yesterday. Minister, would you please clarify for me in this Assembly the reason why it was decided to pursue a joint venture between ACTEW and AGL on a single select basis rather than calling for tenders? Were any other companies considered for a joint venture? If so, why were they rejected?
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I have explained broadly the process that the Government went through in this matter, and in particular the process that the board of the ACTEW Corporation went through. The board wrote to the Chief Minister in November of last year to explain the position that it had taken in that matter. I will table this letter to indicate the approach the ACTEW board has taken in respect of this matter.
Mr Quinlan: You are a shareholder, Gary.
MR HUMPHRIES
: Indeed, that is right. Members will recall that in the course of last year, after the decision was taken by the Assembly to reject the sale of ACTEW, the Government's focus shifted to a possible merger between ACTEW and GSE. During that process, simultaneously another iron was put in the fire, for the sake of keeping
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .