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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3908 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Nevertheless, I will support Mr Stanhope's amendment, with Ms Tucker's foreshadowed amendment, because there is a little bit of suspicion there that some people might put their hand up as an Independent. We just need to make a distinction by way of Ms Tucker's amendment.

MS TUCKER (8.48): I move:

Paragraph (2), omit "three members of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory being the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker", substitute "four Members of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory being the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker and a Member representing the crossbench Members".

I respect Mr Hird's passion on this subject and that of some other members, but I am not comfortable with Mr Moore's motion. I did get a few phone calls made from my office today just to see what other parliaments were doing. I did manage to get on to Tasmania. They had a similar debate and they resolved just to send a delegation. They resolved to send two Labor, two Liberal and one Independent. For the relative size of the Assembly, well, that sounds reasonable.

I have moved to amend the proposal that Mr Stanhope has put to include a member of the crossbench. I must say that when I see these sorts of motions I am wary off them. I think if people want to go there that's fine, but they should be well able to afford to go there. Okay, we can send an official delegation if that is the will of the parliament, but the whole lot should not be getting paid to go there. You should be able to manage that yourself if you really want to go.

This is a good compromise. It has come from Mr Stanhope and I have corrected the slight oversight. There are actually people other than the major parties here, so the crossbench is now represented as well.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Care) (8.50): Mr Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed that the motion has not been accepted in the spirit that it was put. It was put as a general indication that we are supportive of sending people to Melbourne. In the end individual members will make their own decision. That is why the government will be opposing the amendments that have been circulated.

Amendment (Ms Tucker's ) to Mr Stanhope's amendment negatived.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Stanhope's ) be agreed to.

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