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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (21 June) . . Page.. 2347 ..

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, this man has been warned at least three times today. I am surprised that you are leaving him in the chamber. I would be very keen to have him out.

MR SPEAKER: It would be a great disappointment if, when the appropriation bill came up, you were not around, Mr Stanhope.

Mr Stanhope: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the minister just made an appalling reflection on your capacity and your control of the chamber in telling you how to do the job. I think you should defend yourself.

MR SPEAKER: I do not see it that way.

Mr Stanhope: It was an appalling reflection on you, suggesting that you do not have the capacity to control the chamber.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope, if you do not sit down, you will be out of the chamber. I am tired of constant interjections. I remind members that we have the appropriation bill to deal with, and I would hope that all members would like to make a contribution somewhere along the line. Some of you might not be here to do so.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, if in my being critical of your tolerance-and I was being somewhat critical of your level of tolerance-I have in any way offended you, I certainly withdraw. Sometimes I find your level of tolerance most extraordinary.

It is somewhat disappointing that we are going to 10 years rather than six years, but the matter of principle is still important. If the result is 10 years, that will be a major contribution to openness in government processes. I am absolutely delighted that Mr Humphries and the government have agreed with me to make it retrospective. The whole notion of prospectivity put up by Mr Stanhope is appalling. It says more about Mr Stanhope, the Labor Party and their attitudes that they want to go for prospectivity than it does about anything.

This is about openness. I look forward to the support of members for the bill, even if it is amended in a way I disagree with.

MS TUCKER (4.02): I will not be supporting Mr Humphries' amendments. I think the six-year period is quite appropriate. I understand the numbers are there for Mr Humphries' amendments, because the Labor Party will support Mr Humphries. I concur with Mr Moore. I think the legislation we will end up with will be a good and reasonable piece of legislation that will assist in accountability and community confidence in the workings of the Assembly and the government of the day.

Question put:

That Mr Humphries' amendments to Mr Moore's amendments be agreed to.

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