Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1779 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
Mr Speaker, this history of the Bruce Stadium redevelopment fiasco, constructed as it is from the scraps that media and Assembly scrutiny has dragged from the Government, reveals the farrago of inconsistencies derived from the Chief Minister's can-do mind-set. It describes her determination to impose her will, irrespective of due process; and in this case, irrespective of the law. It demonstrates, perhaps more comprehensively than any other issue before this parliament and community over the last four years, this Government's complete and utter disregard for process. It shows how completely this Government is wedded to the politics of the glib line and the showy picture opportunity. But it also paints a more serious picture of a government contemptuous of the most basic tenets of the democratic system upon which this Assembly relies, and it is for that contempt that the Chief Minister must go.
All the evidence is in and it is time to sum up against the Chief Minister. As those of us who have been involved in the law know - as Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke know only too well - a point comes in an investigation when any further evidence gathering is unnecessary. The Government's own legal advice referred to the fundamental requirement that the public moneys of the Territory must not be expended otherwise than in accordance with an appropriation. The consequences of a breach of this fundamental constitutional stipulation are serious. Mr Tracey drew the Government's attention to the words of the Privy Council in the Auckland Harbour Board case, and I will repeat those:
For it has been a principle of the British Constitution now for more than two centuries ... that no money can be taken out of the Consolidated Fund into which the revenues of the State have been paid, excepting under a distinct authorisation from Parliament itself. The days are long gone by in which the Crown, or its servants, apart from Parliament, could give such an authorisation or ratify an improper payment. Any payment out of the Consolidated Fund made without parliamentary authority is simply illegal and ultra vires ...
Mr Osborne well knows the point. On 11 December 1997 he spoke in the Assembly about the importance of section 83 of the Constitution. He said then:
Section 83 was meant to guarantee as far as possible in a society that the public could see how their money was being spent. That financial transparency ensured democracy.
The concern of this Assembly on this matter has been obvious for months. It is a concern that the Chief Minister has shown no acknowledgment that she accepts that her Government has broken the law, no recognition that governments simply have to uphold their own laws, and no real commitment to right the wrong in a simple, straightforward and honest way. Dwight Eisenhower, during his 1952 election campaign, was asked:
The Democrats have been in power a long while and, sure, they have made a few mistakes but their intentions are good. Why would we get rid of them for you?
Eisenhower replied:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .