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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3520 ..

MRS BURKE (continuing):

This was about talking, at the very least, with the people in the first instance. It was about trying. It was about having a go and, in the fair dinkum Aussie way, giving people a fair go. If the minister then had to make the decision he did, so be it. Nobody is knocking him or judging him on that.

Why does this minister think and believe that he is above this place and its conventions? We enjoy those and we abide by them, usually. It seems that it was with an air of arrogance and self-inflated pride that the minister was not prepared to do that. I noticed that the minister, and many from the government who have spoken since, made no mention of Assembly process, democratic process or the Westminster system, for that matter.

Is it not somewhat hypocritical for this blatant and arrogant practice to be adopted by a government supposedly trumpeting a human rights agenda? Isn't that considering the rights of people out there?

Mr Quinlan: I enjoy a good laugh.

MRS BURKE: They may laugh, and that is fine. Let them laugh. I am glad you are laughing, Chief Minister.


Mr Stanhope: I am laughing at that-this is a human rights issue!

MRS BURKE: No, people do not know. They have no idea.

MR SPEAKER: Order, members!

MRS BURKE: Surely the actions of the planning minister fly in the face of not only that, but of our democratic process in this place. That is the thing that is in question today. The democratic process of negotiation, of talking. Politicians have a bad enough image out there as it is, let alone the image that is created by the stunts that have been pulled by the planning minister, Mr Corbell.

Why could the minister not eat humble pie and negotiate and consult with the community? On 27 August this year, I believe that the minister created this monster that is now coming back to bite him. This Assembly has been ignored. It is disgusting and it is appalling. The Assembly cannot and must not allow such behaviour and must therefore, in all conscience, support this censure motion in order to uphold and maintain the political and democratic systems in this place.

MS DUNDAS (3.32): There are a few points that I think need to be made in this debate. When we are debating a motion of censure-and I would like to stay on that topic-we should not take such a motion lightly. I see censure as quite distinct from want of confidence, but it still sends a very strong message from the Assembly to the minister concerned that we are concerned about his or her actions. In this case, it is Minister Corbell and concerns a particular motion that has been ignored. It is not calling for him

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