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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1815 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Mr Speaker, there is much more to say, and others will say it. One of the conclusions from what Mr Wood has said is that perhaps other candidates will come forward. I would like to say here and now in this place that I for one will not accept a nomination from anybody else. The Liberal Party will nominate our own candidate. Our candidate will be Mrs Carnell.

Mr Speaker, what has happened here today? Let us just come back to Bruce. There was an error, but that is all there was. Was there any intent here? No. Did Cabinet mean for the Act to be breached when it proposed this action? No. Did the Government order the law to be broken? No. Did the staff at OFM believe that they were acting outside the law? No. Was there any money misappropriated? No. Is there any money unaccounted for? No. Does anyone consider the money to be misspent? No. Does anyone believe that there has been an attempt to mislead the Assembly? No. Has the Assembly been misled? No. Should this motion pass? No.

MR QUINLAN: Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation under standing order 47. Two speakers have already quoted me from estimates, Mr Stefaniak and Mr Smyth, and I think much of what they tried to say swings on that quotation. For the record, let me read what I said immediately after the quotation that they have used. It goes:

For the record I am saying at this moment I am not talking about corruption, okay. I reserve the right at any future time, based on further legal opinion and further reading of what is available, to alter that position.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MR HARGREAVES (3.10): The issue of Bruce Stadium has been bubbling along now for many months. Finding out information has been tortuous, difficult and fraught with cloudiness and murkiness. It is an issue which, at first pass, seemed just as the Chief Minister has portrayed it - one of a technical deficiency which could have been fixed. However, on closer examination and with the additional information which has come to light, it has emerged as a most serious issue - an issue which, at its base, goes to the heart of the fundamental question of trust and integrity.

There are, Mr Speaker, two quite distinct issues. These issues are whether an act has been performed illegally and what are the consequences of this, and the issue of the extent of the problem. Of course, it would be nice to see the full extent of the problem before deciding on the fate of anyone found to have acted illegally. But, Mr Speaker, this is not a necessary precondition. Where it has been proven that an act has been performed illegally, and this has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, there is no earthly reason why it cannot be dealt with. Indeed, there may be very good reason to deal with it, even though the whole picture has not been presented.

Mr Speaker, I am reminded of part of a speech Mr Rugendyke made during the censure motion against the Chief Minister over the Kinlyside affair. Mr Rugendyke was quite right at that time when he said, and I quote from the Hansard of 25 August last year:

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