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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 10 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 3151 ..

Mr Berry: Okay. The motion is in order.

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order, Mr Berry.

Mr Berry: The motion is in order, Paul.

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, I never once said that it was out of order. I just said that I am confused.

Mr Berry: Fine, good.

MR SPEAKER: The chair has made no claim to that effect. It is up to the Assembly.

MR OSBORNE: If you are going to be a hypocrite you would wait at least 10 minutes before you do it, surely. Perhaps when Mr Stanhope sums up he could explain the sudden turnaround on the constitution in the last 10 minutes.

MS TUCKER (11.02): I will speak briefly to this motion. This is a debate about whether or not we can debate, as a parliament, a very important issue that should be of concern to the whole ACT as a community. I believe it would be of concern that we at least have the right to have this debate. If we do not have this debate today we will have it another day if Mrs Carnell is made a minister. We will obviously have that debate because there will be a no confidence motion put against her as that minister. I am assuming that the Labor Party would be considering that, and I certainly would be. We would want to see that debate.

This is about democracy. This is about the right to discuss an important issue. Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne claim they want an early election because they have great respect for democracy. I ask them to give this parliament the right to have this debate now.

MR BERRY (11.03): Mr Speaker, this debate is merely about the suspension of standing orders to consider a matter which is important so far as the standing orders of this Assembly are concerned. Mr Osborne's contribution to the debate merely muddied the waters a little bit. I think you agree that the motion is completely in order. Nice try, Ossie, but it is still in order, and it is a motion that should reasonably be considered by this place.

I do not think there is any doubt in this place that the majority of members have had no confidence in this former minister because of the way she handled her job. It is merely a test of this Assembly, through this motion for the suspension of standing orders, to discover whether this Assembly would support her being appointed as a minister again. If it is the wish of this Assembly for her to be recycled, then it is most important that those members who think she ought to be recycled be counted. I see nothing wrong with that and I think it is a very good argument for having the debate now instead of running away from it. Do not run away from the debate.

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