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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1800 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Finally, Mr Speaker, could the Chief Minister or any member of Cabinet have been expected to know that the guidelines required under section 38 of the Financial Management Act had not been issued? The answer to that, again, is no. Do not take my word for it; take Mr Quinlan's. On 4 June, less than one month ago, during the Estimates Committee hearings into Bruce Stadium, Mr Quinlan made the following observation:

Let me repeat that so that members can be absolutely clear about it. Mr Quinlan said:

Note what he said, Mr Speaker. He did not say that he thought that the intention was not to commit an illegal act, but that he was sure that the intention was not to commit an illegal act. If he is sure, why has his leader adopted a different view?

Mr Speaker, the Labor Party has tried to build its case around one word here - illegality - in the hope that it will smear the Chief Minister and her good name and have some people in this city believe that she is somehow a criminal. Yet, quite clearly from what Mr Quinlan said there, he does not think so; what is more, he has said so publicly. So, even before Mr Stanhope had decided to move this motion, it seems that his deputy did not believe what his leader has spent the last few weeks trying to argue.

There was no intent to act illegally. There was no fraud. There was no misuse of public moneys. There was no personal gain. There was no corruption. There was no other form of reprehensible conduct. The evidence presented today clearly shows that the Government and its agencies believed not only that what they were doing was right but also, more importantly, that what they were doing was being done for the sole purpose of trying to minimise the potential cost of the redevelopment to taxpayers. That is basically what the Chief Minister has said in her speech to the Assembly today. Mrs Carnell has admitted, as have other members, that a mistake was made in carrying out the Government's decision to finance the Bruce Stadium redevelopment. She has apologised on numerous occasions, including in this place today.

That brings me to a very important issue for members to consider. Has the fact that guidelines were not issued to cover section 38 of the Financial Management Act caused any damage, any waste or any misuse of money? Mr Speaker, the answer to that is no, it has not. In fact, the same transaction would be done identically if it were done again today after the proper guidelines had been issued. So, whether the guidelines were issued or not, this did not make any difference to the way the transaction was conducted. The Labor Party has not proved that there was any intent to step outside the law, that we knowingly proceeded to deliberately flout the law, nor that there was any damage caused.

Let me talk a little more about this question of intent, Mr Speaker, because it is very important. I have looked at this question from both a formal legal sense and a broader linguistic sense. There are a number of definitions of intent. Firstly, as to the attempts to portray the Chief Minister as having done something unlawfully, something criminally,

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