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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3634 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

employed somebody to set about making sure that, whoever the inquiry is, will understand the facts.

At lunch time Mr Humphries announced that there will be an inquiry under the Inquiries Act and that Justice Gallop will be conducting that inquiry. Mr Speaker, I think all members would recognise the contribution that Justice Gallop has made to this community, his independence and his understanding of the ACT and the ACT's system. I think Mr Humphries will seek leave to make a short statement on that matter after the presentation of papers.

I have to say, Mr Rugendyke, that there have been some concerns within government about whether or not we would proceed down the path of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. There were quite a number of reasons why the government felt it ought not do this. However, what became very clear to us was that Mr Wood said he would support your legislation that is currently on the table.

I would like to say to members that I sought advice from the Clerk on that because I believe that your legislation would interfere with our basic democratic principles of the separation of powers. The reason I felt that, Mr Speaker, was that Mr Rugendyke, in his introductory speech, you may recall, actually drew my attention to the fact that I had originally proposed something similar. Indeed, I had. After I had discussed that with the Clerk I decided that what I was doing was inappropriate, dangerous to our democratic principles and so forth. So, Mr Rugendyke, I hope you will recognise the same and withdraw your legislation.

For the information of members, I table the following document:

I would encourage the Labor Party, in particular, to read this advice, because your commitment to support that legislation - a commitment that you made, Mr Wood, repeatedly reported in your voice on the media - was a commitment to undermine our basic and fundamental democratic processes.

Mr Wood: Oh dear, oh dear!

MR MOORE: Mr Wood suggests I haven't done anything. Mr Wood, as you are interjecting, I will explain the difference to you.

Mr Wood: What is the difference between what you've done in the past and what you think I've done now.

MR MOORE: I shall explain the difference. Listen very carefully and try to make a principled decision. You made the interjection; now listen. The difference is this: legislation such as the changes to the Subordinate Laws Act - and Mr Hargreaves has one - is about giving more power to the Assembly to scrutinise what the government is doing; it is not about taking over the role of government. That is the difference.

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