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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1804 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Mr Speaker, in criminal law charges of murder downwards require that the prosecution must prove deliberate intent. Mr Stanhope, who is a lawyer, should know that he has to prove a deliberate act on the part of the Chief Minister, and he has to prove that, I would suggest, beyond any reasonable doubt; he has to prove that she deliberately set out to break the law. He has not done so. He has not done so beyond reasonable doubt. He has not done so even on the balance of probabilities. In fact, he has not done so at all. He cannot, Mr Speaker, because there is no evidence that that is what was intended. There is no evidence because there was no such intent. There was no such intent, Mr Speaker, because the Government at all times believed that it was acting lawfully. All the Cabinet Ministers, including Mr Kaine, and all the public servants - everyone - acted as they did because there was at the time no hint that there might be anything unlawful about the actions being proposed concerning the need to continue funding the Bruce Stadium redevelopment.

It was only when the legal opinion was obtained from Mr Tracey that the warning bells were rung. And what happened then? As soon as the Government was made aware of the technical deficiency, action was taken to rectify it, as the Chief Minister has said. She approved the retrospective guideline. And she was entitled to do so; Parliamentary Counsel and Mr Tracey have confirmed that she could. It validated the act, it then made it legal. Further actions flowed from that. The Chief Minister has then indicated what she did when that did not satisfy the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, this is certainly not a hanging offence. I do not think that the members of the Labor Party have proven their case in any way. But, Mr Speaker, if we are to set a new standard here today and make an inadvertent error a hanging offence, as the Labor Party would want us to do, then I have to say that we are setting an amazing precedent that you can be sure will spell the end for every Chief Minister at some time in the future, be they Liberal, be they Labor or be they even from the crossbench. (Extension of time granted)

I began my remarks by talking about the central issue in this debate - intent. The Labor Party has not shown that there was any intent to act inappropriately by any person. Put simply, they have not demonstrated reprehensible or reckless conduct or misleading of the Assembly, which is the normal standard for a motion of this extreme gravity.

Mr Osborne had already made his position clear prior to this debate, but I think that it is important all the same to remind members of what he said about this subject late last year. On 3 September last year, he said:

Two words are significant - "gross misconduct". I think the people of the ACT would accept that. I think the Canberra Times recognises that in its editorial today. Yes, a mistake was made. Yes, the standard of administration could have been higher. But gross misconduct, no. What we have heard today is that there was no fraud, there was no dishonesty and there were no cover-ups. It was just a government trying to ensure that the taxpayers would be required to find as few dollars as possible for the Bruce Stadium redevelopment. Put simply, no gross misconduct was shown to have occurred.

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