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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1799 ..

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education) (12.37): Mr Speaker, I am at a bit of a loss, firstly, as to just what Mr Quinlan is saying. We have had wild accusations without any evidence whatsoever. He was making claims without any substantiation. Evidence is required in a serious motion such as this. The Government is facing some serious accusations today. These accusations need to be substantiated with evidence, not just the vociferous comments which came from Mr Quinlan. Today's debate should not be about the Government being guilty until it proves its innocence; it should be about proving the Government guilty. I would say that that proof should be beyond reasonable doubt.

I will deal with another point Mr Quinlan made before I get into some other arguments, Mr Speaker. He made a number of comments about Bruce and Manuka, including comments about their costs. He made comments also about alienating the AFL and cricket. I do not think the sports agree. I think the sports are overwhelmingly happy with what has occurred at Bruce and with what the Government has proposed for Manuka and with what it will do to assist, along with help from the Federal Government.

Mr Smyth: And they looked pretty happy yesterday.

MR STEFANIAK: They certainly looked very happy yesterday. Mr Speaker, it seems to me that the arguments put forward by the Labor Party boil down fundamentally to one issue and one issue only: Was there any intent by the Chief Minister or, indeed, the Government to operate outside the framework of the Financial Management Act - in particular, section 6 of that Act - or any other legislation?

The question of intent is very important, Mr Speaker, because without it Mr Stanhope has failed to make any case whatsoever against the Government. From what I have heard so far today, he has been unable to answer the following five very basic questions: Firstly, has the Labor Party produced any evidence which shows that any member of the Government or any public servant knew that they were acting outside the Financial Management Act? The answer to that, quite clearly, is no. Secondly, has the Labor Party produced any evidence which shows that any member of the Government or any public servant deliberately tried to avoid the provisions of the Financial Management Act? The answer to that, quite clearly, is no.

Thirdly, has the Labor Party produced any evidence which shows that, prior to any decisions being made by the Government, there was advice provided to the Chief Minister or any public servant that the approach being taken was unlawful or conflicted with the provisions of the Financial Management Act? Again, the answer is no. Fourthly, has the Labor Party produced any evidence which shows that the Chief Minister or any public servant tried to conceal the financial arrangements for Bruce Stadium so that they would not be subjected to public scrutiny? No. In fact, as we heard today in that very long and most detailed explanation of what occurred, the Chief Minister, the Government and the public servants have been most forthcoming there.

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