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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2650 ..



I have never seen in my time in the Assembly a situation like this. Normally, ministers duck and dance, weave and do a few little tap dances. In Mr Quinlan's case, there was a tap dance and a waltz. I suppose we have all done that as ministers, but everyone has tried to answer questions, maybe some not as well as others. This situation is rather extraordinary. These are extraordinary circumstances. It is rather extraordinary for an estimates committee to unanimously recommend these things. Accordingly, I think that we do have a duty to do what they wish.

Mr Smyth's amendment is along those lines. It clearly recognises the three issues in terms of the three actual instances that we have to look at. I think that a prima facie case has been established for a committee to be set up to investigate the matters and see whether they should be taken further.


(Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (9.44): Mr Speaker, I just want to pick up on a couple of points. As members might have noticed, I have not been in the chamber all of the time but I have been following the debate on closed circuit television. Closed circuit television lifts you somewhere closer to the world of entertainment and I was wondering overall whether this could be anything other than a comedy if David Williamson were to make a play out of it. I doubt very much whether you could make a serious drama out of it.

Mrs Cross

: That smacks in the face of democracy, Ted.


: Certainly. I truly confess to this place that over a lifetime I have not had a great deal of respect for pomp and circumstance, and occasionally that has cost me. So you will have to forgive me if I express a little concern about just how very serious people have been about Mr Corbell not giving information which he released the next day.

I was particularly intrigued-and I want to share this with the Assembly-by Mrs Dunne's reference to Charles I.

Ms MacDonald

: Off with his head.


: Off with his head. Mrs Dunne is a student of history and I am not, so while I was in my office I looked Charles up on the net. I thought I would read what I found. This is just one extract from the net and it might be open to objection, but it goes like this:

Charles I was to be tried by 135 judges who would decide if he was guilty or not. In fact only 68 turned up to the trial. Those that did not were less than happy about being associated with the trial of the king. In fact, there were plenty of MPs in parliament who did not want to see the king put to trial but in December 1648 these MPs had been stopped from going to Parliament by a Colonel Pride who was helped by some soldiers. The only people allowed into Parliament were those who Cromwell thought supported the trial of the king. This Parliament was known as the "Rump Parliament"and of the 46 men allowed in (who were considered to be supporters of Cromwell), only 26 voted to try the king.

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