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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1926 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

making, is that through this you and other Independents are advantaging yourselves against Independents in the community who are not here. That is the fundamental unfair aspect of this legislation.

I have already addressed the argument that you have 100 supporters in order to have got here. You have not addressed that argument, as it is obvious that I also got 100 votes, but as a party I have to get 100 members. Now, I am happy to work with that. The fundamental issue of this, apart from that aspect of the unfairness of what you are doing and how it is very much about ensuring your position as someone who is in here at the expense of Independents out there, is the fact that if you are going to have these groups, whatever they are, then they are nothing; they are a group of people who want to get elected, and so, in order to get elected, they are going to put themselves in a column.

What does the Paul Osborne group stand for? You use Paul Osborne's name to get elected, but you have no common policy. As soon as you got here you said, "We are Independents. We are not a party. We do our own thing." So what are you actually saying to the community when they see these columns?

I cannot understand how you do not see it as a totally cynical manipulation of the electoral system in order to progress your own electoral chances. That obviously is what it is about or you would not have done it. Not only have you done that, and that has been legitimised here, but you are disadvantaging other Independents who you say you want to see in the Assembly. You are lauding Independents as the defenders of right and justice. You, as an incumbent, are disadvantaging them. You already have an advantage, as Mr Kaine said. Anyone has an advantage if they are in here, but you are actually making it even more of an advantage. It looks like self-interest, and that is what it is.

Question put:

That Ms Tucker's amendments be agreed to.

The Assembly voted-

	 Ayes 6  			Noes 9

 Mr Berry  	Mr Wood  	Mrs Burke  	Mr Osborne
 Mr Corbell     		Mr Cornwell  	Mr Rugendyke
 Mr Quinlan    			Mr Humphries  	Mr Smyth
 Mr Stanhope    		Mr Kaine  	Mr Stefaniak
 Ms Tucker    			Mr Moore    

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13.

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