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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1067 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

I just hope that this government and the next government, whomever that may be, will have learned something from the events of the last couple of years. I do not intend to support the censure motion. I look forward to the Auditor-General's report on the move of CTEC to the airport. As I said earlier, I think it is probably a sensible move, given that we all want the airport to be the hub of tourism and get people in and out. Obviously, there are the other issues that we have heard about from other members. From my perspective, it has probably been a good move. I just want to reaffirm my disappointment at the way some people have been dragged through this matter. It is an unintended consequence, I suppose, but at the end of the day-

Mr Rugendyke: An intended consequence.

MR OSBORNE: Mr Rugendyke says that it is an intended consequence. I do not know that I would agree with that.

Mr Rugendyke: It is a deliberate slur.

MR OSBORNE: I do not know that that is true, either. All I can talk about is my dealings with these gentlemen, and I have always found them to be professional. As I said, I do not know them personally, but I imagine that they have not enjoyed the last couple of weeks. I look forward to the Auditor-General having a look at the nuts and bolts of the issue and reporting back to the Assembly.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.35): The issue has been fairly well traversed. I have an inclination to take us back to taws and ask: how did this issue arise? How did it surface? How did it start? It started with Ms Tucker asking a question in this place of the minister about the reasons for the move. I do not have it before me, but, as I recall, the question Ms Tucker asked which was the catalyst for or precipitated the entire debate on this issue was: Minister, what are the reasons for the move by CTEC from the city to the airport and how have you dealt with the range of issues raised by the move, particularly the range of issues around accessibility? The minister gave an answer to that which many of us did not find particularly helpful and did not satisfy the issues.

The issue moved on and then Ms Tucker moved a motion which the Assembly-a majority of the members; therefore, the Assembly, this parliament-passed that the minister provide to the Clerk for inspection only by members all documents related to the decision of CTEC to relocate its offices to Canberra Airport, and the motion listed the range of documents that were to be provided in those circumstances, documents relating to tenders, consultants' reports, minutes of meetings, et cetera. They were to be provided by 1 March. That was agreed. The motion was passed. The question was put and passed. From memory, it was not even opposed by the government; it was agreed to and the motion was passed. Members then had an expectation that the documents pursuant to that motion would be provided. I think I am right in my memory that the government did not oppose the motion.

As Mr Berry has said, and perhaps Ms Tucker alluded to it as well, Mr Smyth came back to the Assembly after the passage of the motion and made certain statements about the provision of documents. Mr Berry read from Hansard the following words that Mr Smyth used in this place:

... the Assembly asked yesterday-

that is, the day after the motion was passed-

that documents from CTEC be put with the Clerk for members to view. That has been done ... CTEC has prepared them in a way that documents to be released normally are.

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