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

None . . Page.. 522 ..

That argument is that we are not asking Mrs Carnell to set a new standard of ministerial propriety. We are not asking Mrs Carnell to crank up the bar and say that there should be a higher standard of conduct for ACT Ministers. This Government is lowering the bar. This Government is saying that a standard of conduct lower than that which has been applied in other governments in Australia will apply to ACT Ministers.

Premier John Fahey, New South Wales Liberal, and Prime Minister Paul Keating, Federal Labor, are good examples in the last 12 months of where, in relation to an allegation going to personal conduct and personal propriety of a Minister, the leader acted quickly to stand that person aside. No implication of guilt should be involved in that. The standard that applies within this administration, the standard that applies within the Australian Federal Police and that was reported yesterday, clearly shows the established benchmark in Australia in relation to allegations of sexual harassment. Standing officers aside was a standard of conduct good enough for Premier John Fahey, good enough for Prime Minister Keating and good enough for the Australian Federal Police. Those police officers who have been stood aside must be asking themselves, “Why am I stood aside when it is regarded that a member of the ACT Cabinet in the same situation does not have to stand aside?”.

Members who do not support this motion are not preserving the status quo. They are not keeping away from a mucky matter and avoiding being judge and jury. Members who vote against this motion are consciously and actively setting the standard of ministerial propriety in this Territory at lower than the established norm, and that is a serious step for this Assembly to take. It seems that the only defence of that has been the spurious argument from two Ministers that this motion would make government unworkable; that this would mean that nobody could conduct business because absurd allegations would be made against every Minister. There was only one allegation made against a New South Wales Government Minister in relation to this type of matter. There has been a subsequent allegation against a New South Wales Liberal backbencher. But this did not cause massive instability in a minority government situation for five years in New South Wales.

I am talking about allegations of sexual harassment, involving Ministers in Australia, that have gone to a commission and in respect of which the ability to strike out frivolous and vexatious matters has not been exercised. It must always be remembered that that is a power within the Act. I do not want to get into the merits of this matter, but I make the point that the argument that government would be unworkable because there would be allegations against every Minister has not applied even in areas where appropriate standards have been acted on. When Premier Fahey very swiftly said, “Minister, you stand aside while we quickly conduct an inquiry”, there was not a rash of other allegations. If there were to be other allegations, the provision in relation to frivolous and vexatious complaints could be exercised.

The only defence the Government has is that if it were to require its Ministers to stand aside in these circumstances government in the ACT would be unworkable because no Minister could go ahead and do their duties. That simply has not been the case around this country. It is highly insulting to the process of sexual harassment allegations to suggest that all complaints are frivolous and vexatious and have not been made out.

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