Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 628 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
I think you will recall, Mr Humphries, that the coroner found in relation to some of the aspects of the tendering process for the hospital implosion that there were no processes. I am interested in your devotion to process, as one of the findings of the coroner was that there was no process. No, he did not; I do him a disservice. I think that he found that the tendering process followed in relation to the hospital implosion was a sham. It was a process-I believe these are the very words of the coroner-designed by the previous government, the government of Mr Humphries, to disguise the fact that there was no process. That was the tendering process that you utilised in relation to the hospital implosion. In terms of standards, the standards that Mr Humphries employed in relation to the hospital implosion are not acceptable to me-standards which the coroner found, as I said, to be a complete sham, a process designed to disguise the fact that there was no process.
I move from there to the Auditor-General's report in relation to the Bruce stadium, where there was another major dissertation-in fact, 14 separate reports-on the Liberal Party's view and attitudes to process, integrity, morality and ethics. I am reminded, as we are constantly, by the fact of the illegal behaviour that was very much a feature of the redevelopment of Bruce stadium-
Mr Smyth: Where are the charges?
MR STANHOPE: There were no charges, so the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggests that the behaviour was not illegal. You breached the Financial Management Act and you breached the self-government act. These were characterised by the Auditor-General and a number of leading QCs as major breaches of the law. This is your standard; this is your process.
Mr Humphries: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about the standards the Chief Minister has now set for his government with respect to proper process. So far, we have heard only about other things. I wonder whether he could be asked to answer the question directed to him.
MR SPEAKER: Chief Minister, I think that Mr Humphries has raised a fair point. You have raised some other interesting things, but if you could get to the point of the question.
MR STANHOPE: I understand, Mr Speaker, and I shall do my best to do that. I was creating a context. The question was rather bald and blunt. In talking about processes, standards, ethics and morality it is important, because some of these standards are relative, to understand the standards of the Liberal Party in relation to each of these issues so that I can then extrapolate and give some indication of the new standard of integrity and morality that will apply. Of course, it is not the standards that applied in relation to the hospital implosion, it is not the standards that applied in relation to the Hall/Kinlyside proposal and it is not the standards that applied in relation to Bruce stadium. It is a standard of good government.