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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1824 ..

Given that we have now had two versions of who may or may not have been where, it is not up to us now to make the decision. I put my argument forward this morning and I have heard what Mr Quinlan has said and what Mr Stanhope has said. Maybe it is now up to the coroner to recall both Mr Stanhope and Mr Castle and ask them directly and have the coroner make that decision as to what happened and who was where on the night of the 17th.

I am not interested in the Chief Minister’s scalp. As I said this morning, I do not think he is a bad person—and I stick to that comment. I am, however, interested in absolute ministerial responsibility. In the Chief Minister’s words when he was in opposition: ministerial accountability is absolute. I believe that: either it is or it isn’t. The buck stops with the top. The top in this place is the Chief Minister and if, on this matter, which has been the most serious, the most devastating event of Canberra’s history in our lifetime, we cannot expect good leadership from our Chief Minister, then why should we impose the same standards on other members of this place on lesser matters which have been brought forward in this Assembly in the last few months?

I put my case forward this morning. I stress: I am not interested in the Chief Minister’s scalp; I never have been. I have no problem with this government maintaining its position in government. I would not support the change at this stage. This was not what this is about. This is about accountability and the boss; the buck stops with the top and in this case it is the Chief Minister. If we cannot expect him to accept responsibility for failed actions on his part or reactions proactively then why should we expect it of others? So as I said, I will support this reluctantly because it is better than nothing.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (4.22): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendment. We moved this motion today with all seriousness because misleading is a very serious event. I certainly do not like the notion of downgrading it, but I can read the numbers. We will support the amendment but do not particularly like having to do so, simply because we do not want to go down in a blaze of glory, standing to the guns, so that the Chief Minister can go outside and say, “I have been exonerated by the Assembly.” I think, the opposition and all of the crossbenchers having raised concerns, it is not something that I would want or agree to, but Ms Dundas obviously has the numbers or, in the negative, we do not have the numbers to maintain the motion at the level we would like to see it.

I just bring to members’ attention and put on the record that what we have done now is really lower the bar. We have really lowered the bar in relation to the standards of ministerial responsibility. We have lowered it so far that some of the forms of parliament established by Westminster over hundreds of years and maintained by the other jurisdictions in this country have disintegrated in the course of this Assembly. A minister found guilty of contempt would normally resign—but here, no punishment given. Ministers who mislead, even inadvertently, on major issues would normally resign—but here, didn’t do it; no; we’re not going to do it. It is interesting and I think it is somewhat sad.

Some interesting speeches have suddenly emerged from the government and it is interesting that Mr Quinlan picks on five of the things I have said and does not pick up the other five—the ten incidences of misleading that we propose are here—and I would

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