Page 63 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Who are you going to believe? The coroner’s objectivity has been upheld by the courts, but Mr Stanhope, Mr Corbell and the government would have us believe them—believe their word, when they have a strong interest and a selective memory—versus the findings of a coronial inquest when they have not been able to in any way demonstrate why the coroner would be going after them or why the coroner would be biased.
We have a Chief Minister who failed to warn the community, despite the strong advice that he had. He then downplayed the threat when warnings finally were issued. He made himself a martyr by saying, “Blame me.” But since that time he has done everything in his power to try and avoid being blamed for his actions.
Let us consider this. In saying, “Blame me”, the Chief Minister has conveniently forgotten potentially incriminating discussions while claiming to remember exculpatory discussions; delayed the inquest by a year with a spurious bias claim; and attacked the coroner when she found against him—we saw that again today. As a final insult, he now claims that, when he said “Blame me”, it did not really mean what people thought it meant. Never before has a coroner issued such damning findings against the Chief Minister. Never before has a Chief Minister tried so hard to avoid responsibility. That is why Jon Stanhope should go, and that is why this motion should be supported.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Minister for Health, Minister for Disability and Community Services and Minister for Women) (3.15): Today we act as a deliberative body, debating one of the most important motions that can be brought before this parliament, that of a want of confidence in the Chief Minister. Through this no-confidence motion brought by the opposition, the Assembly is being asked to consider two very simple but serious questions. Firstly, it is being asked to consider what the appropriate standards are for a minister, a Chief Minister or a government in fulfilling their duties to the ACT community and to this parliament. Secondly, it is being asked to decide whether this Chief Minister has lived up to these standards in acquitting his responsibilities during the lead-up to the 2003 Canberra bushfires.
The answer to the first question, concerning ministerial standards, is that ministers and governments should observe the highest standards of propriety, probity and responsibility at all times, always exercising their powers and undertaking their duties in the public interest. The answer to the second question—as to whether, in acquitting his role, the Chief Minister has lived up to these standards—is unequivocally yes, beyond a doubt.
We will hear from those opposite—we have already heard—some more specific claims about the performance of the government and the Chief Minister. Some of these claims are so far fetched, defying so many basic elements of commonsense and reason, that, were it not for the seriousness of this motion, they would be deserving of only the scantiest flicker of attention by this parliament.
On 18 January 2003, Canberra experienced the worst natural disaster in its history. The scale of and damage wrought by the firestorm which hit the capital that day was far beyond anything imagined or conceived by emergency services personnel, by the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .