Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 392 ..
Mrs Dunne: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I refer to standing order 118 (a), which goes to relevance of the answer to a question. What we are hearing is outside the purview of the question.
MR SPEAKER: I have already commented on the issue of ministerial responsibility and I am not going to change my mind in relation to that. But what I am going to say to the Chief Minister is that I think we are starting to get to the point where the interpretation of "concise" might be argued and it might be a good idea to come to the crunch.
MR STANHOPE: I accept the point, Mr Speaker. Let us listen then, as I conclude my answer, to what the Auditor-General says about the now Leader of the Opposition. He said:
The above discussion shows that the concept of ministerial responsibility contained in legislation is broader than that held by ministers. Those ministers quoted above-
and "quoted above" included the now Leader of the Opposition-
have made it clear that they are unwilling to be held accountable to the public for the detailed operation of public sector administrative units. Indeed, some of the views expressed above suggested an unwillingness to be held accountable for anything other than improper conduct.
"An unwillingness to be held accountable for anything," and I think that sums it up.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I am happy to repeat my question. Can you point to any part-
MR SPEAKER: You can ask a supplementary question.
MR HUMPHRIES: I ask a supplementary question. Can you point to any part of this report which critically refers to any minister in the former government, except, as I mentioned, a passing reference to the former minister for health in respect of the COOOL houses? Won't you admit that your pre-empting of the public debate in this matter by talking misleadingly about what was in this report before it was on the public table has had the effect of misleading the community of this territory?
MR STANHOPE: I repeat the answer I gave. It is pertinent that we have here a party that just recently lost the favour of this community because of this community's perceptions of its failing-in fact, the community delivered to this party and to this government the largest vote since self-government. It is quite obvious why the community passed that judgment. We are seeing it in operation here again. The Liberal Party failed conspicuously and repeatedly to accept any responsibility for any of its decisions or actions in government.
We have a report which, as I said yesterday, is the third part of the trilogy. We now have a trilogy. That government, of course, will be marked by the coroner's report on the hospital implosion, by the Auditor-General's report on Bruce stadium and by Justice Gallop's report into disability services. That is the trilogy. We have to see what it is that connects these three reports.