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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1909 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

in the budget presentation, with Mr Moore's slush fund. He will never get over that. It has almost blown the budget out of the water.

MR SPEAKER: May I remind you of relevance, please, Mr Berry.

MR BERRY: I thank you for drawing attention to that, Mr Speaker. I almost slipped off the rails there for a moment. Mr Speaker, this is a silly way to deal with the matter. They just draw attention to their own weaknesses, and we are quite happy to help them.

MR WOOD (11.15): Mr Speaker, in our earlier years the Assembly was regarded in some quarters, you will recall, as a laughing-stock. That was because of the actions of some of the members. Most members in all the Assemblies since have worked hard to overcome that image, and I believe we have made great progress. Tonight, after taking all those steps forward, the Assembly, because of this motion, will be taking steps backwards. A disgraceful action is being taken. It is truly disgraceful. It will damage the reputation of this Assembly that can ill afford that damage. Beyond that, what it emphasises is how anxious the government is about this matter. The government, by this step, is acknowledging that it has a grave problem.

MS TUCKER (11.16): I would like to speak briefly about the issue of pairing in the Assembly. I was not approached this evening to see whether I would make a pair with Mr Osborne. I normally would do that. I think I always have, except on one occasion when Mr Rugendyke's office asked me to pair with him, but they had not given me notice and they were not clear on how I was voting or how he was voting. I cannot recall the exact details. Whether a pair is appropriate or not depends, obviously, on it being quite clear how the members are going to vote. As it turns out, it looks as though it would have been quite appropriate, and I could have paired with Mr Osborne, but I was not approached. Mr Moore talks about cooperation. He would know that I am open to those sorts of discussions, but for some reason he did not approach me.

I cannot understand why an adjournment motion was not put. The only thing I could assume was that the government assumed Mr Rugendyke would vote differently when he saw that his amendment did not get up. I feel that the process has been incredibly ill-thought out, basically, and I agree with Mr Wood that this is making the Assembly look extremely silly. We have a lot of business to get on with, so let us try to deal with it as quickly as possible.

MR QUINLAN (11.17): I did not participate in the debate earlier today. We were well represented without me later on. I want to ask this rhetorical question, for the record: does the government consider that Mr Smyth's position is such as to corrupt the processes of this place in order to accommodate a reprieve? I think the tactic that is being pulled right now is eloquence itself.

MR HARGREAVES (11.18): Mr Speaker, like Mr Quinlan, I did not speak in the original debate either. I left it to others to make the valid case. But I have to pick on something that Mr Osborne said earlier. He said that he wanted to have his vote on the issue, and I can understand him wanting to do that because it is a serious issue. But we know the rules. We know the rules when we come into this place. If we do not have a pair we lose the vote. That is the end of it.

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